The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[st_lucy]

Take it to another thread.

If you are not welling to provide proof to your outlandish remarks, than please do not make them. Also please watch your attitude this is a Christian site.

 

[Deacon110]

If you are not welling to provide proof to your outlandish remarks, than please do not make them. Also please watch your attitude this is a Christian site.

Watch my attitude?? I hardly describe my request as in need of an attitudinal adjustment. Just wanted to prevent a silly argument that would derail the thread. If you follow the link placed by Tantum you will notice the info I placed there. Please feel free to comment.

With respect to this being a Christian site. Yes I’m well aware of that. Given we both are Christians please except my most humble apology and request for forgiveness if I offended you as the intent of my reply again was to immediately cease a conversation that had nothing to do with the thread Something we’ve all learned being here at CAF.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Please provide some proof for this statement.

Already moved:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=219583

 

[guanophore]

Watch my attitude?? I hardly describe my request as in need of an attitudinal adjustment.

Well, it does.

Just wanted to prevent a silly argument that would derail the thread.

Dont’ be disingenuous, Deacon110. You are the one who threw the rock in pond! now you want to act like you didn’t! That comment did not belong on this thread, and your attitude does not belong at CAF.

With respect to this being a Christian site. Yes I’m well aware of that. Given we both are Christians please except my most humble apology and request for forgiveness if I offended you as the intent of my reply again was to immediately cease a conversation that had nothing to do with the thread Something we’ve all learned being here at CAF.

PEACE

Apology accepted, but next time, don’t start by creating the conversation!

Now, you orginal assertion was that people could be hoodwinked into believing that Mary had no other children because it was not possible to compare the teaching of the Church with the Bible. Does that mean you think that all the monks, scholars and clergyman in the Western and Eastern Churches, and the Refomers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who all believed in this even though they were bible scholars, were all hoodwinked by the Church?

 

[Spirithound]

Scholar! Do a search, post to an old topic, don’t clutter up my subscription list more than I have to.

 

[st_lucy]

Watch my attitude?? I hardly describe my request as in need of an attitudinal adjustment. Just wanted to prevent a silly argument that would derail the thread. If you follow the link placed by Tantum you will notice the info I placed there. Please feel free to comment.

With respect to this being a Christian site. Yes I’m well aware of that. Given we both are Christians please except my most humble apology and request for forgiveness if I offended you as the intent of my reply again was to immediately cease a conversation that had nothing to do with the thread Something we’ve all learned being here at CAF.

PEACE

apology accepted.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I’ve seen that argument made before too. That makes no sense either. Of course Mary is going to be puzzled. Her and Joseph were not married. Earlier in the scripture we read that before Mary and Joseph came together verse 18 of Matthew Joseph found her with child. So when Mary hears from Gabriel that she will conceive a child, that implies pretty quickly. Even though in the future, she’s still not married at this point and hadn’t had sex. It’s after Joseph sees her with a child that he plans to put her away privately verse 19 Matthew.

Then Joseph gets the visit from the Angel and does what’s commanded of him and takes Mary as his wife. But knows her not till. It still comes back to the word know.

How about leave it to Pax eh?? Since he’s the one I asked.

PEACE

But she was betrothed to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation, was she not?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

PAX I noticed that in your argument and the arguments of others they always focus on the word “until”. How about let’s focus on the word know or knew.

**]The word until is the one used by most Late Protestant movements to argue Mary’s virginity. Know or knew used in the same sentence, supports only that he did not have relations with Mary up to the birth of Jesus Christ. Now if you apply your 20th century thought in the word Know, I can see that you will apply your interpretation for it to mean sexual relations, to which it does not state that, one has to read that into the text, thus mis interpreting the word phrase Know and until used in the same text.

Another insight for you to relate to the word know as you said that has already been explained very well by Pax and others. You asked for a play on the word Know and Knew, So just for commentary, I am not taking the place of Pax to refute your play of words, ok.

I would please call your attention to Luke 1:18-20 We have Zechariah,speaking to the Angel Gabriel. I call your attention to the words by Zechariah, “How shall I know this?” his response when Gabriel announced the good news to him that his wife Elizabeth in her old age will have a child.

Now Gabriel’s response to Zechariah from his response "How shall I know this? comes immediately with a curse, of deaf and mute for this small doubt, because his wife was to old to have a child. Poor Zechariah, he got cursed for doubting God’s angel.

Ok, Luke 1:26-34 do you notice why Mary pondered what sort of greeting this might be , an angel, Gabriel ( the strenght of God) Hail her as royalty, and full of Grace (highly favored one)? we can get back to this seen later.

verse 34, Mary upon receiving the annunciation from Gabriel, that she was going to bear a son.
Mary answered immediately, Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I know (have no relations with) not a man? Did the Blessed Virgin Mary doubt the Angel Gabriel just like Zechariah did? No the Angel blessed Mary the angel did not curse her like he did Zechariah, verse 35, And the Angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU./B]

**What does it mean then that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born? Please tell me how he knew her. He already took her as his wife so how else could he know her?

I am sorry to disappoint you Deacon ? What is recorded in sacred scripture is recorded in sacred scripture period. What you are attempting to do is change the 1st century thought into 20th century thought to mean SEX, it does not do that Mr. Deacon, Scholary speaking that is a no/no…

**Now if you want to know the behind the scenes from what actually happened, you are going to have to use the only deposit of faith left to go by: and that sir Deacon is Sacred Tradition.

Now Sacred Tradition teaches she remained a Virgin while married to Joseph. The eyewitnesses handed down to us by Sacred Tradition, tells us, Mary and Joseph were married and she kept her Vow of virginity, at the approval of Joseph. Yes she needed his approval. Please read the following:

The Law, Numbers 30:4… When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the Lord, or binds herself to a pledge (now if you read all of Lukes annunciation, Mary makes a pledge in her fiat (Yes) “I am the handMAID of the Lord. May it be done according to what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled” Remember Gabriel, blessed her, after her doubt, because she had already bound herself to the Lord, and asked Gabriel how can I have a child, yes I am going to be married according to our laws, but I have pledged a vow of Virginity unto the lord.And it will create scandal if I conceive. Gabriel tells her The Power of the most High will be upon her, not to fear.

Now Joseph, after hearing from the Angel about Mary, this is what Joseph does according to Sacred Tradition: and eyewitness orally handed down, not written.
The Law: Numbers 30:7… If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, Then the Vow or Pledge she made remains valid.
Please dont desacrate the ancient sacred scriptures with your 20th century thoughts.**

Also If you read the Infancy Gospel of James, which is endorsed by the Catholic church, Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel when he tells her she will conceive and have a child is, how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex.

**Again that is what Deacon thinks it means, that is not what the text is saying, It is saying according to the law she has had no relations with a man. it does not imply sex sir.

The I dont know and until does not say Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.**

So then roll forward to Matthew, his gospel says Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born. I know the use of the greek word for brother can be universal but the relatives of Jesus referred to in the bible uses the word desposyni meaning literally belonging to the Lord. It was a word used to reference Jesus blood relatives.

I dont understand your above statement, can you rephrase it please?

What documentation do we have that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt so everyone will understand. Otherwise to argue her perpetual virginity reverts back to interpretation of scripture and we know where that goes. Just looking for some honest help.

**Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition answers it for you. To get documentation Deacon you first have to stop inserting your own thoughts (interpretations) into scripture, or any proof text shown you, will cause you to keep disagreeing.

Iam just trying to give you honest help.

Peace be with you **

 

[Deacon110]

But she was betrothed to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation, was she not?

Yes but that just meant they were engaged although I was told it actually did mean they were married. With no sex though.

Now usually the betrothed period for Jews at this time was 1 year. The reason was because mariages were pre-arranged. After 1 year the couple was allowed to engage in marital relations with the intent to have children but they could not have sex during that one year period while betrothed. This allowed them to divorce if the arrangement did not work out. If the bride was unfaithful she could be punished for adultery. This is why Matthew states that Joseph was going to divorce her quietly and bring no shame to her and her family. Or as some interpretations say, put her away privately. Same thing. Legally Joseph could have pressed charges against Mary and she literally could have been stoned to death. A Rabbi actually explained this pretty well to me.

Now Mary and Joseph were betrothed for several months before Mary became pregnant with Jesus. Considering she would have delivered around 9 months or so that would have pushed past the 1 year mark for legally having “sex” by say 2-3 months give or take. So in this light it makes sense that Matthew says he did not “know” her until Jesus was born. Obviously they weren’t going to have sex when she was 7-8 months pregnant with Jesus. If she took a vow of virginity then this piece of scripture makes no sense at all. This is what I need help with. When I asked the Rabbi he agreed and said he always believed Mary resumed a normal marital life with Joseph. If Joseph was truly just protecting her virginity then why was he divorcing her? It doesn’t add up.

PEACE

 

[Old_Scholar]

Deacon110;3327265:

PAX I noticed that in your argument and the arguments of others they always focus on the word “until”. How about let’s focus on the word know or knew.

**]The word until is the one used by most Late Protestant movements to argue Mary’s virginity. Know or knew used in the same sentence, supports only that he did not have relations with Mary up to the birth of Jesus Christ. Now if you apply your 20th century thought in the word Know, I can see that you will apply your interpretation for it to mean sexual relations, to which it does not state that, one has to read that into the text, thus mis interpreting the word phrase Know and until used in the same text.

Ok, Luke 1:26-34 do you notice why Mary pondered what sort of greeting this might be , an angel, Gabriel ( the strenght of God) Hail her as royalty, and full of Grace (highly favored one)? we can get back to this seen later.

verse 34, Mary upon receiving the annunciation from Gabriel, that she was going to bear a son.

**

What does it mean then that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born? Please tell me how he knew her. He already took her as his wife so how else could he know her?

I am sorry to disappoint you Deacon ? What is recorded in sacred scripture is recorded in sacred scripture period. What you are attempting to do is change the 1st century thought into 20th century thought to mean SEX, it does not do that Mr. Deacon, Scholary speaking that is a no/no…

**Now if you want to know the behind the scenes from what actually happened, you are going to have to use the only deposit of faith left to go by: and that sir Deacon is Sacred Tradition.

Now Sacred Tradition teaches she remained a Virgin while married to Joseph. The eyewitnesses handed down to us by Sacred Tradition, tells us, Mary and Joseph were married and she kept her Vow of virginity, at the approval of Joseph. Yes she needed his approval. Please read the following:

Now Joseph, after hearing from the Angel about Mary, this is what Joseph does according to Sacred Tradition: and eyewitness orally handed down, not written.
The Law: Numbers 30:7… If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, Then the Vow or Pledge she made remains valid.
Please dont desacrate the ancient sacred scriptures with your 20th century thoughts.**

Also If you read the Infancy Gospel of James, which is endorsed by the Catholic church, Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel when he tells her she will conceive and have a child is, how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex.

**Again that is what Deacon thinks it means, that is not what the text is saying, It is saying according to the law she has had no relations with a man. it does not imply sex sir.

The I dont know and until does not say Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.**

So then roll forward to Matthew, his gospel says Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born. I know the use of the greek word for brother can be universal but the relatives of Jesus referred to in the bible uses the word desposyni meaning literally belonging to the Lord. It was a word used to reference Jesus blood relatives.

I dont understand your above statement, can you rephrase it please?

What documentation do we have that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt so everyone will understand. Otherwise to argue her perpetual virginity reverts back to interpretation of scripture and we know where that goes. Just looking for some honest help.

**Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition answers it for you. To get documentation Deacon you first have to stop inserting your own thoughts (interpretations) into scripture, or any proof text shown you, will cause you to keep disagreeing.

Iam just trying to give you honest help.

Peace be with you **

The meaning of “know” in the context used is definitely sex. That’s the way it is used, in this context, throughtout Scripture. Could you even imagine Mary did not “know” a man in any other sense? Could she have been so naive that she didn’t even “know” her father?

You just haven’t read enough history as the Bible teaches it. Read how this word is used in the Old Testament in the same context and it always means sex.

Read Genesis 1:4, Gen 4:17, Gen 4:25, Judges 19:25, and Isaiah 1:19-20, just to name a few.

 

[Deacon110]

**]The word until is the one used by most Late Protestant movements to argue Mary’s virginity. Know or knew used in the same sentence, supports only that he did not have relations with Mary up to the birth of Jesus Christ. **

Had to be 2 posts. Sorry

That’s not what that means. They were not allowed to have sex during that 1 year betrothed period so there’s no reason for the text to clarify that. The text does not bear that statement “up until” anyway.

Matthew 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son.

Taken right from the Douay Rheims Bible. It does not say up until.

Now if you apply your 20th century thought in the word Know, I can see that you will apply your interpretation for it to mean sexual relations, to which it does not state that, one has to read that into the text, thus mis interpreting the word phrase Know and until used in the same text.

This is not a 20th century use of the word know. If you read the Infancy Gospel of James after Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will conceive, Mary says how? I do not KNOW a man. The old testament in the Septuagint uses this same phraseology of a husband knowing a wife. Adam KNEW Eve and she bore 2 sons Cain and Abel. Adam KNEW Eve again and she bore a son Seth. You just got done telling me it meant sex above. You said it meant they didn’t have sex up until that time. So it means sex. You’re contradicting yourself here.

Another insight for you to relate to the word know as you said that has already been explained very well by Pax and others. You asked for a play on the word Know and Knew, So just for commentary, I am not taking the place of Pax to refute your play of words, ok.

I have no problem with you responding

I would please call your attention to Luke 1:18-20 We have Zechariah,speaking to the Angel Gabriel. I call your attention to the words by Zechariah, “How shall I know this?” his response when Gabriel announced the good news to him that his wife Elizabeth in her old age will have a child.

Now Gabriel’s response to Zechariah from his response "How shall I know this? comes immediately with a curse, of deaf and mute for this small doubt, because his wife was to old to have a child. Poor Zechariah, he got cursed for doubting God’s angel.

Yes this was pretty severe. No argument here. But that has no bearing on the use of the word know in Matthew regarding Mary and Joseph. The subject is completely different. Again I refer you to the OT example above which is from douay rheims.

Ok, Luke 1:26-34 do you notice why Mary pondered what sort of greeting this might be , an angel, Gabriel ( the strenght of God) Hail her as royalty, and full of Grace (highly favored one)? we can get back to this seen later.

Yes I know where you are going with this but I’ll wait.

verse 34, Mary upon receiving the annunciation from Gabriel, that she was going to bear a son.
Mary answered immediately, Mary said to the angel, "How can

this be, since I know (have no relations with) not a man?** Did the Blessed Virgin Mary doubt the Angel Gabriel just like Zechariah did? No the Angel blessed Mary the angel did not curse her like he did Zechariah, verse 35, And the Angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU./B]**

But what does that have to do with Zechariah?? They both had the same doubt. That they would have a child. Zechariah because he was too old. And Mary because she was a virgin and obviously not had sex yet. You’re admitting again the use of the word know implies sex.

What does it mean then that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born? Please tell me how he knew her. He already took her as his wife so how else could he know her?

Good question so you have to understand what this meant at that time. I responded to this in another post. The normal time frame for a betrothed couple was 1 year during this time. They were not allowed to have sex at all during this 1 year time frame. Why? Because if it didn’t work out they could get divorced legally. If the wife was unfaithful he could have charges pressed against her and she could be punished possibly even stoned. That’s why Matthew mentions Joseph being an honorable man was going to divorce her quietly and not disgrace her family when she showed up pregnant with Jesus.

Now considering they were betrothed for about 4-6 months give or take when Mary shows up pregant with Jesus, and Mary probably wasn’t due for about another 7-8 months, this would have pushed past the 1 year period by a few months, give or take, for when they could legally have sex as husband and wife. Obviously Joesph is not going to have marital relations with Mary while she’s carrying Jesus, so they wait until after Jesus is born. Hence Joseph did not know her (have marital relations) until after Jesus was born. This makes complete sense now. If Mary had vowed to be a virgin then this verse makes no sense. You’ve admitted several times now that the word know means sex.

I am sorry to disappoint you Deacon ? What is recorded in sacred scripture is recorded in sacred scripture period.

Right so why would you think I’m dissapointed?? I’m just interpreting sacred scripture.

What you are attempting to do is change the 1st century thought into 20th century thought to mean SEX, it does not do that Mr. Deacon, Scholary speaking that is a no/no…

Again I’m not using 20th century terminology to describe 1st century thoughts. I’m using 1st century thoughts and applying them to 1st century scripture. In the 20th century I don’t say I got married and knew my wife on my honeymoon to describe sex. That’s not 20th century.

 

[Deacon110]

contd from above:

**Now if you want to know the behind the scenes from what actually happened, you are going to have to use the only deposit of faith left to go by: and that sir Deacon is Sacred Tradition.

Now Sacred Tradition teaches she remained a Virgin while married to Joseph. The eyewitnesses handed down to us by Sacred Tradition, tells us, Mary and Joseph were married and she kept her Vow of virginity, at the approval of Joseph. Yes she needed his approval. Please read the following:

The Law, Numbers 30:4… When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the Lord, or binds herself to a pledge**

Yes but if the father opposes it, the vow shall not stand and the Lord will forgive her. The husband can also oppose and the vow shall not stand.

(now if you read all of Lukes annunciation, Mary makes a pledge in her fiat (Yes) “I am the handMAID of the Lord. May it be done according to what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled” Remember Gabriel, blessed her, after her doubt, because she had already bound herself to the Lord, and asked Gabriel how can I have a child, yes I am going to be married according to our laws, but I have pledged a vow of Virginity unto the lord.And it will create scandal if I conceive. Gabriel tells her The Power of the most High will be upon her, not to fear.

No where in this scripture do we read that she took a vow to the Lord. She describes herself as a bondservant to the Lord. The greek word being doulos there. That’s not the same thing as taking a vow or pledge to the Lord. The Apostles describe themselves as a doulos to Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with marriage and marital relations.

Now Joseph, after hearing from the Angel about Mary, this is what Joseph does according to Sacred Tradition: and eyewitness orally handed down, not written.
The Law: Numbers 30:7… If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, Then the Vow or Pledge she made remains valid.
Please dont desacrate the ancient sacred scriptures with your 20th century thoughts.

I would never desacrate sacred scripture. This is not what’s happening here. Scripture does not show her making a vow or pledging under oath to the Lord. Doulos is not an oath to the Lord. Remember the laws of Biblical interpretation, no proof-texting, we speak where the Bible speaks, and we’re silent where the Bible is silent.

Also If you read the Infancy Gospel of James, which is endorsed by the Catholic church, Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel when he tells her she will conceive and have a child is, how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex.

Yes my point exactly. Then Matthew tells us Joseph did not know her until Jesus was born. Why is it sex in one place but not another. You’re not being consistent at all. You keep admitting it means sex but then say it doesn’t.

Again that is what Deacon thinks it means, that is not what the text is saying, It is saying according to the law she has had no relations with a man. it does not imply sex sir.

You just said it means sex. Relations and sex are the same thing. Your contradicting yourself within the same sentence. Did you forget what you also just typed and I quote:

"how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex"

Does this word “sex” not mean sex? You just majorly contradicted yourself. Please don’t tell me you didn’t.

The I dont know and until does not say Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.

I think based on the debate we just had you confirmed that it does. You just admitted that the word KNOW means sex in the gospel of James and admitted it means sex several places in this post including in Matthew.

So then roll forward to Matthew, his gospel says Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born. I know the use of the greek word for brother can be universal but the relatives of Jesus referred to in the bible uses the word desposyni meaning literally belonging to the Lord. It was a word used to reference Jesus blood relatives.

I dont understand your above statement, can you rephrase it please?

Sure. The greek word desposyni means blood relatives. In the new testament when describing Jesus family this word is used when talking about HIS brothers and sisters in Mark. Actually I think Mark uses desposynos which is the same thing. So Mark implies blood relatives which means Mary and Joseph had sex.

What documentation do we have that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt so everyone will understand. Otherwise to argue her perpetual virginity reverts back to interpretation of scripture and we know where that goes. Just looking for some honest help.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition answers it for you. To get documentation Deacon you first have to stop inserting your own thoughts (interpretations) into scripture, or any proof text shown you, will cause you to keep disagreeing.

I think I have demonstrated my case just fine without inserting my own thoughts or interpretations or prooftexting etc. I think you need to have an open-mind. Then go back and read how you contradicted yourself. Not being rude just honest.

Iam just trying to give you honest help.

Peace be with you

And I certainly appreciate your honest help.

PEACE to you as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No where in this scripture do we read that she took a vow to the Lord. She describes herself as a bondservant to the Lord.

**"Luke 1:38 Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” Then the angel departed from her.

Now a Nazarite Vow was only taken by Nazarenes, Sampson, John the Baptist, Sacred Tradition holds that Mary took one. Scripture does not show she took the Vow, other than the eyewitnesses who handed this down through oral Sacred **Tradition.

I would never desacrate sacred scripture. This is not what’s happening here. Scripture does not show her making a vow or pledging under oath to the Lord.

Luke 1:38,46-55 disagrees with you

we speak where the Bible speaks, and we’re silent where the Bible is silent.

Thanks for repeating me, the bible is silent about your sex theory, so it remains silent, “scripture is scripture” you cant add or subtract from the Word of God.

Yes my point exactly. Then Matthew tells us Joseph did not know her until Jesus was born. Why is it sex in one place but not another. You’re not being consistent at all. You keep admitting it means sex but then say it doesn’t.

Deacon, you are reading your Quotes into mine, you may have to reread my previous post, I do not say, what you accuse me of, you are reading your quotes and believing them to me mine, My quotes responds to your accusations in bold print.

You just said it means sex. Relations and sex are the same thing.

NO it does not mean sex. Relations and sex do not mean the same thing in this scripture, because we have the word until, or till, depending your translation being used in the sentence.

Reread Pax thread on the word Until, till. It will help you understand that no what soever relations with a man, up to the birth of Jesus Christ. The text does not say Mary had sex with Joseph after they were married, again you are reading that into the original text. Please stop it. Please slow down and digest what I just revealed to you.

Your contradicting yourself within the same sentence. Did you forget what you also just typed and I quote:

“how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex”
Does this word “sex” not mean sex? You just majorly contradicted yourself. Please don’t tell me you didn’t.

LoL, No I did not, you are reading your quotes again into my quotes , I am responding to your statement, please revisit your quotes, they are yours not mine. Sorry if you got confused. Take it easy, my quotes are in bold lettering.

I think based on the debate we just had you confirmed that it does. You just admitted that the word KNOW means sex in the gospel of James and admitted it means sex several places in this post including in Matthew.

You are the only one that brought up your gospel of James, I do not follow the gospel of James because it has not been Canonized by the Roman Catholic church. Is this gospel of James in your bible or are you just giving it a different name?

I think I have demonstrated my case just fine without inserting my own thoughts or interpretations or prooftexting etc. I think you need to have an open-mind. Then go back and read how you contradicted yourself. Not being rude just honest.

]I can appreciate your candor if you were not so misunderstood or dont remember your own quotes, and you contradicted your quotes with mine./B]

**Sir you moved the discussion from the Word until or till, and you still have not gotten past this understanding , to take on the next word Know. So for you to continue in our discussion, which I am happy to oblige you, I need to know if you have the same understanding of the word Until or till, that is translated from the original language. And then we can move on to the word Know. Until then (20 century meaniing).

Now if you cant get pass the word Until or till. I need to know what is your interpretation of the Word Until or till. So as to move on. If your definition is different than the original text, then it may be hopeless for you to continue, If facts and truth cant prove to you, I dont know what will?**

Until next time, Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3328436:

The meaning of “know” in the context used is definitely sex. That’s the way it is used, in this context, throughtout Scripture. Could you even imagine Mary did not “know” a man in any other sense? Could she have been so naive that she didn’t even “know” her father?

**]Hello Old Scholar, before we move on I will explain what I explained to Deacon, The word Know is used in the context with the word Until or till. It means Mary did not know a man (or had relations with a man) up to the time of Jesus birth. Please sir, It does not say anywhere here or in scripture Mary had Sex with Joseph. You are reading sex into the text as if it is going to happen which it does not indicate that, unless you misinterpret this scripture in your own 20th century word until, or till.

Please reread Pax’s definition on the word until, all scholars agree on this definition. so please stop violating the sacred text. **

You just haven’t read enough history as the Bible teaches it.

Oh, I know, from what you have revealed to me your interpretation of scripture, I am not as well versed in scripture or history as you are, so please indulge me.

Read how this word is used in the Old Testament in the same context and it always means sex.

Read Genesis 1:4, (SORRY THIS IS INCORRECT SCRIPTURE REFERENC) Gen 4:17, Gen 4:25, Judges 19:25, and Isaiah 1:19-20, just to name a few.

B]Correction you mean Gen.4:1 dont you?
Bravo, Bravo Old scholar, tell me do any of the scriptures you just mentioned have the word Until or till in them. NO! so you cannot state this word Know is used the same way to mean Mary had sex with Joseph. Old Scholar did you just MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT OR AN ERROR in your translation.
**Please, tell me you have the correct defintion of until or till being used here. If you do, we can move on, if you dont accept the accepted Scholary definition of the word until, then it is NOT the virginity of Mary you have a problem understanding ,it is Truth in front of you.

Peace and Love be with you **

 

[paarsurrey]

The Scriptures name brothers and mentions sisters of Jesus. In several places, the brothers are mentioned and James is often identified as James, the brother of the Lord.

Hi

The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 has also mentioned that Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary.

Thanks

 

[Old_Scholar]

Pax

“Brethren of the Lord”

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants use the
term “virgin” in reference to Mary, they mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus. They believe that she and Joseph
later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the
Lord."What gives rise to the disagreement are biblical verses
that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

We don’t have any disagreement here. Except the Scripture often says the “brothers” of the Lord and in many places says, “James, the Lord’s brother.”

Cont’d—

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; 7:1, 5; 7:10; Acts 1:14). Let’s examine a few of them: “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt. 12:46). “Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3). “For
even his brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the
women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:14). “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a
wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to noteis that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a very wide
meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister”
(adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that the term “brother” had a very wide
semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom
you are descended are known as “fathers”), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by
marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26;
Amos 1:9).

The word “adelphoi” does not necessarily have a broad meaning. The first definition listed is “brother” and only the secondary meanings include relatives. Since the context of the verses are as they are, it obviously means “brother” when it is used.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the words all had different meanings. You have to understand the context in which the word is used. If the writer had wanted to say that the brothers and sisters were cousins, he would have used the proper word.

No Word for Cousin

Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a
special word meaning “cousin.” Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as
“the son of the sister of my father.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews naturally enough took to using “brother.”

You are incorrect in what you printed. The Aramaic word for “brother” is “Achui.” If this had been written in Aramaic, then that is the word that would have been used. But it was written in Greek and the proper word was used as well.

You are also incorrect about Hebrew having no word for “cousin.” The Hebrew word for a male cousin is: “Ben Dod” and the Hebrew word for a female cousin is: “Bat Doda.”

There is no reason to believe either the Hebrew writers of the oOld Testament or the Greek writers of the New Testament used the wrong words. This is merely speculation and has no basis in fact.

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually
has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin,
anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

How can you think the writers of the Septuagint used the wrong word? On what basis do you make the statement that they “favored” one word over another? How Naive. We really don’t know much about the Septuagint because the oldest copies of it we have date back to only 400 A.D., so who is to say what the original said? I think it is a little presumptuous for anyone to claim that they used the wrong word.

In addition, in Luke 1:58 when speaking of cousins and other relatives, the word “suggenes” is used. That certainly shows the writers knew the difference. And again in Luke 8:19-20 the writer si again writing about brethren and again used the Greek word for brother. Not the word for cousins.

Continued…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Pax(continued)

At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How
can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the earliest days of the Church, as the Fathers interpreted
this passage of the Bible, we see that Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of life-long virginity, even in
marriage (this was not common, by any means, but neither was it unheard of). If she had not taken such a vow, the question
would make no sense at all. We know that some first century Jews took such vows (for example, the Essenes, the authors of
the Dead Sea Scrolls), and Mary’s question indicates that she had done so.

Why would anyone believe that Mary did not say what she meant? Can you provide any of the early church fathers writings that support this theory? And I mean only of the first and second century because this belief didn’t begin until hundreds of years after Christ.

Mary knew the facts of life–she knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she
had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to
ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her
question only makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and
acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had
any children other than Jesus.

This one is almost comical. It is quite obvious what Mary meant. There is no hidden meaning here. She meant “how can she be pregnant since she has had no sexual relations.”

That is even ridiculous to mention.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is
no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41-51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of
Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” The Greek expression implies he is her only
son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they
were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

This one supports the Protestant position much more than the Catholic position that Joseph had children from another marriage. If so, then those children would have been present, according to your statement, but James, the oldest, could have not been born yet.

The truth is that we don’t know anything about other children at all from this story.

There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns, or at least Westerners, to grasp. It is that the attitude taken by the
“brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and,
particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in
Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger never gave advice to older–it was considered disrespectful to do so.
But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judaea so he could make
a name for himself (John 7:3-4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the
“brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born”
son (Luke 2:7).

This supports the theory many theologians have that Jesus was not believed by His family and they were ashamed of His actions to the extent that they really didn’t want to be around Him. That is the reason most theologians believe to show why none of His brothers or sisters were at the cross.

The other comments about brethren being older, etc. is merely speculation…

Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John. “When
Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then
he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:26-27).
Now the Gospels mention four of his “brethren,” James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have
disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

This is supported by my comments above.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea–which is that nothing at all can be proved from the use of the word “till”
in Matt. 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a
son” (New American Bible); “he had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

This and what preceded it has already been addressed.

(continued)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Pax(continued)

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows
ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12).
Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait
until a second son was born before they could call their first the
“first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was
termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died
during the birth of her “first-born.”

So I guess when God took the firstborn of the Egyptians, He really didn’t mean only them…

This is speculation in order to try and prove a point. It is really pointless.

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such
marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family,
and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child! The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we
expect its members to act as would the members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice on the part of Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of
the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Again, it is too presumptuous to assume that there was so much more meant than what was written in this case. We have no reason to believe Joseph and Mary were not good Jewish parents and followed the law. In fact, Scripture says they were devout Jews so they would have definitely followed the Jewish traditions of marriage that require them to “multiply.”

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of early Christian Church. Consider
the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of
the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to
comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world."At
length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual
Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such
as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in
disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times./.quote]

Jerome could have been just as wrong as Helvidius here. I believe Helvidius was the one that was right. And you are in error when you say Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary unless you can show their writings that say so.

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary.

You are using a writing that is not inspired or a part of the Scriptures and it was written over 100 years after the fact. There is no proof there other than some of the ridiculous claims made by other Apocryphal books.

So it’s probable that James is the son of Mary and Cleophas. The
second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Cleophas
was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was
Joseph’s putative son.

There is absolutely nothing to support this supposition. Mary is identified quite clearly and there is nothing to indicate anyone else was mother of James.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question–they might even be relatives more distantly removed–but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

This is not a very accurate statement. In fact the Bible positively states that those mentioned were brothers and sisters of Jesus and therefore had to be children of Mary. Any other way to read it is simply disingenuous.

To a theologian or someone really interested in what is truth, you would have to first read the account as it is written. That is the first rule of hermenuetics. Then if you can prove it is wrong, fine, but if you can’t, then it has to be ture.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Old Scholar and Deacon , are we clear on the word Until sirs. I would like to honestly know your interpretation of the word "Know used in the context of “Until”

NO response indicates a Yield to the agreed argument that it does** NOT MEAN MARY will have sex or had sex with Joseph.**

I see now that if you agreed this text Matthew 1:25 does not indicate what so ever that Sex had occured or is going to occur, Mary Remaining a Virgin from this text. thank you in advance.

Now on to the brothers of Jesus.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Another argument against Mary and Joseph having produced children after Jesus birth is from the gospels.

i) It would make no sense, be highly insulting, and be against custom for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after (see John 19:27) had Mary had sons and daughters by Joseph. Evidently she was alone and Jesus gave her to John to care for.

ii) When Jesus was 12, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph having brothers and sisters in the sense of children form Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:44). Kinsfolk yes…brothers and sister…no.

iii) The “Joseph knew her not until” issue. Quite clearly eos and others words do not mean limited but often unlimited. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus says he his with us “until the end of the world”. Obviously, this does not mean finite and that Jesus is only with us until that point and then we are on our own. Similarly, knew her “until” does not mean that Joseph then began to have sex with Mary To argue he did means to also force that meaning on Jesus’ words and to assume that until means that when the end comes Jesus will cease to be with us. It seems clear that the verse can mean that Joseph did not ever “know” Mary in the sense of having sexual relations with her.

There seems to be good scriptural and logical support for Mary having remained a virgin and not having other biological children.