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

[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?

Does that mean she would therefore not give birth to another apart form Christ?

The word there handmadien is the same translated when the Apostle Peter spoke in Acts 2:18.

So please tell me what it 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.

 

[po18guy]

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.

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.

 

[passer_by]

What is your evidence from scripture for perpetual virginity?

First, what you will find is that Perpetual Virginity is not contradicted by Scripture. You would be right in saying that there is no explicit mention of Perpetual Virginity ANYWHERE. This “brothers” business that you seem to be lingering on can easily be explained as cousins. To call cousins ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ was usual at that time and where I am from, it is done even today.

BUT then, this brings us to the next question.

Why do you ask for evidence from Scripture alone?

What makes you believe that Scripture is the only thing one should listen to? Please refer to my previous Post as well as you reply to this question.

Because you see, you are asking all these questions from a wrong foundation i.e. You believe that it must be in Scripture explicitly or it is false. So no other statement outside Scripture is even important for you when you interpret Scripture. Now we can either correct this foundational error or we won’t get anywhere.

I would be happy to discuss this via PM if that is more convenient for you and you think it will derail the thread to discuss that issue first.

 

[Algo1]

First, what you will find is that Perpetual Virginity is not contradicted by Scripture. You would be right in saying that there is no explicit mention of Perpetual Virginity ANYWHERE. This “brothers” business that you seem to be lingering on can easily be explained as cousins. To call cousins ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ was usual at that time and where I am from, it is done even today.

“When we come to the New Testament, where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term” (McClintock and Strong, 1:895).”
continued:

“Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.”
Source

 

[Cat_Herder]

"sola Scriptura: Scripture alone; the watchword of the Reformation in its establishment of the basis for a renewed and reformed statement of Christian doctrine.

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.

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

See the problem? God explicitly wills for all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. How can that happen if the Church has lost the truth? The only logical solution is that the Church can never lose the truth, meaning that there was nothing, doctrinally speaking, to reform.

No apostasy for you!

 

[po18guy]

Algo1:

“Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.”
Source

Do you, by your own authority, declare Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli all to be wrong?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Do you, by your own authority, declare Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli all to be wrong?

Oooh. Good point. Here’s a page that lists all of the first Reformers’ positions on the matter:

Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. … Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

So, which Reformer do you go with, Algo1?

The door of the Ark is open for when you get tired of treading water.

 

[po18guy]

Oooh. Good point. Here’s a page that lists all of the first Reformers’ positions on the matter:

Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. … Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

So, which Reformer do you go with, Algo1?

The door of the Ark is open for when you get tired of treading water.

He is following the Algorithm of self. He can cut and paste until he is as blue in the face as his posts are in print, but they will still be simply wrong.

Agendas are against forum rules, so it is worth watching.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

“When we come to the New Testament, where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term” (McClintock and Strong, 1:895).”
continued:

Assuming the Greek has different words for cousin and brother, that is still irrelevant to our discussion. Jesus and Mary were Jews, that would mean that they inherit Jewish culture of calling people of the same clan brothers and sisters. They were not Greek and since they were Aramaic, had no distinction between a cousin and a brother.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Here’s a possible explanation. Jesus’ own family did not believe that He was a prophet, much less the Messiah. (Mark 6:4 - Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”) His own family had rejected Him.

Jesus’ family lived in Nazareth but only Mary His mother is named as being present at His crucifixion outside of Jerusalem. At this time, since no brothers believed nor were present, and Mary, being away from home and needing care and a place to stay, was assigned by Jesus to be cared for by John.

Mary remained in Jerusalem with John and the disciples at least until Pentecost. She is mentioned as being present in the upper room with them after Jesus’ resurrection. Interestingly, Jesus’ brothers are listed as being in attendance there also. Perhaps, the resurrection convinced them as to who Jesus really was.

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

 

[UnityofTrinity]

So, did the Holy spirit lead to the division between Orthodox and Arian, between Orthodox and Copts, between Orthodox and Monothelites, between Iconoclasts and Iconodules, between East and West, and between Rome and the Reformation?

If not, then how does Rome have any superior claim?
If she ought not to have excommunicated the Protestants …
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the EOs
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Monothelites
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Copts …
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Arians …
Then there would be less division - more unity, right?

So, was the Holy Spirit behind that or not?

If the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of confusion then why Protestantism is such a divided church? The Catholic Church, being united in doctrines and inspired by the Spirit is therefore superior. At least from a rational point of view Catholics are united in their stances. What about Protestantism? Do you think the Spirit divided all these churches?

 

[Jesucristo]

faith/fāTH/
Noun:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I see the word Evidence many times in these posts, and just wondered how evidence and proof differ. If they do not differ that much, then why would anyone of faith have a need for evidence.

Peace be with you.

 

[po18guy]

faith/fāTH/
Noun:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I see the word Evidence many times in these posts, and just wondered how evidence and proof differ. If they do not differ that much, then why would anyone of faith have a need for evidence.

Peace be with you.

Welcome to the forums. Proof runs counter to faith, since no faith is needed when confronted with proof. Jesus gave scant proof to the Pharisees, when they demanded a sign.

 

[Algo1]

continued:

** Augustine (354-430): **
We have, my dearest Marcellinus, discussed at sufficient length, I think, in the former book the baptism of infants, — how that it is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Savior Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. I undertake in the present book to discuss and explain the question, Whether there lives in this world, or has yet lived, or ever will live, any one without any sin whatever, except “the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all;” — with as much care and ability as He may Himself vouchsafe to me.
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 1.

Augustine (354-430 AD) commenting on Psalm 87 (Actually the LXX rendering of Psalm 88:4-5):

In these words the person of the Lord appears most plainly: for who else is free among the dead, if not he who, though living in the likeness of sinful flesh, ** was alone sinless among sinners?**
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 18, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 73-98, Psalm 87.5 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 260.
Latin Text:
In his verbis maxime persona Domini apparet. Quis enim alius inter mortuos liber, nisi in similitudine carnis peccati inter peccatores solus sine peccato? In Psalmum LXXXVII Enarratio, §5, PL 37:1111.

Augustine (354-430):
This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins.
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.

** Augustine (354-430):**
Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. ** One alone is there who was born without sin,** in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.” For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,” even **He who alone is without sin, ** and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,” in friendship with sins.
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV].

Augustine (354-430 AD):
Did you not read there that, when the bishop I just mentioned ** was teaching the birth of Christ from his virgin mother, he said, “And so he was tempted in every way like a human being and endured all things like human beings, but as born of the Spirit he held back from sin. After all, every human being is a liar (Ps 116:11), and no one is without sin but the one God. The principle, then, was preserved that no one born of a man and woman, that is, through the union of bodies, is seen to be immune from transgression. But the one who is immune from transgression is also immune from that manner of conception.”
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272.
continued:

 

[passer_by]

Algo1:

“Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.”
Source

Thanks, but I think you might be missing the point here.

Let us for a moment grant that the above research is accurate in terms of the language observations.

I would like to point out that the Church also believes that Blessed Virgin Mary is the spiritual mother of all the elect. So in that sense, I see no difficulty in still sticking to the idea that the mentioned relationship is spiritual in any of these passages with immediate connection to her. Do you see what I mean?

But in any case, I think there is major reasons to doubt the scholarship of the above authors. I recommend that you read some writings of St. Jerome that specifically tackle this “brothers” issues. The following might help too

newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

So if you don’t mind, I would like to get to the heart of the matter here, which is your foundation. What makes you so sure that

1. There are no truths outside the Bible
2. You are interpreting the Bible correctly

I would especially like to hear reasons for (2). The best I have heard is “Holy Spirit guides me”. When I ask them how do they know that the Holy Spirit guides them, I am told the “Bible tells me so”. But that would be circular i.e. One needs to be sure they are interpreting the Bible properly before they know that the Bible actually tells them that the Holy Spirit will guide them.

So would like to hear your thoughts on this for sure.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Trevor Stamm;8642928:

Welcome to the forum

James, Joseph, Judas (Jude), and Salome (sister of these three) were sons and daughter of Mary the wife of Cleophas. Simon was a Cananaean, not a Nazarene thus would be impossible for him to be Christ’s brother. What clear mention was Sacred Scripture referring too again?

Yeah, I have read that here (didn’t read all) but didn’t see an explanation. Could you please explain it.

I did, go to page one and see the second post.

 

[ATA]

Hello? Are you even listening? Are you even considering the responses? It appears that you have an agenda - a forum rule violation.

If you believe the bible, then logically, you should believe that Mary is ever virgin. The same God-given authority declared both to be true.

Practically speaking, I know two mature women that are virgin. One is in her 70s and the other is 50 and MARRIED. Now, if two average, sinful women can do this, by choice, don’t you think that the woman chosen and createed by Jesus to be His mother, and who vowed that she was the bond slave of the Lord (to an angel) could do the same? I mean, really!

This focus on sex tells us a lot more about those who claim it than it does about Mary.

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.

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.

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?

First, what you will find is that Perpetual Virginity is not contradicted by Scripture. You would be right in saying that there is no explicit mention of Perpetual Virginity ANYWHERE. This “brothers” business that you seem to be lingering on can easily be explained as cousins. To call cousins ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ was usual at that time and where I am from, it is done even today.

BUT then, this brings us to the next question.

Why do you ask for evidence from Scripture alone?

What makes you believe that Scripture is the only thing one should listen to? Please refer to my previous Post as well as you reply to this question.

Because you see, you are asking all these questions from a wrong foundation i.e. You believe that it must be in Scripture explicitly or it is false. So no other statement outside Scripture is even important for you when you interpret Scripture. Now we can either correct this foundational error or we won’t get anywhere.

I would be happy to discuss this via PM if that is more convenient for you and you think it will derail the thread to discuss that issue first.

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?

ATA;8647139:

I did, go to page one and see the second post.

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.

 

[paul_c]

Do you, by your own authority, declare Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli all to be wrong?

Frankly, although they may have been right about Mary, these three were wrong on so many other things that using them as a reference here seems a little selective…

 

[UnityofTrinity]

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

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?

 

[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?

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.

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?

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.