The Virgin Mary was she always so?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kra130
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High
A son of the most high was royalty, not deity, all great kings were “sons of the most high” Joseph was from the house of David, the house from which the messiah would come.
 
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1:32 the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father
This is the earthly messiah the Jewish people have been waiting for. Makes perfect sense since Joseph is of the house of David. Mary had no reason to think anyone other than Joseph would be the true Father.
 
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Still looking for that reason Mary wouldn’t know Joseph wouldn’t be the Father.
So, there we have Luke 1, prior to the statement of Mary, any remote reasoning for thinking Gabriel wouldn’t mean Joseph were the Father “if” Mary had planned on a normal sexual relationship?
 
Well Tom I think I am going to take this question and forget it and believe traditionally. Mary is a virgin now and always. I am not going to bother you any more but I will pray for you. To Our Lady. I know she has helped me a lot God Bless and see you
My point is there is absolutely no reason for Mary to make her statement in Luke 1, 34 if she planned on ever having sex with Joseph. Her question is not a question a woman who planned on having sex would have asked.
When she said she was a virgin she meant that was her state for life, not her current status. She is a perpetual virgin.
 
Yes but why do you want to throw all those quotes and questions at people if you believe that Mary had no oter children period. Thank you and good bye Oh I am not mad or anything but I dont intend to lead other people to believe otherwise
 
I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.

Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, "Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names."

Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.
Wow.

Even God calls them "first-born’.

I wonder how Atemi will explain this away?

🤷
 
I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.

Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, "Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names."

Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.
I’m convinced. The only possible question is the actual hebrew word used. If it is the same in all three examples, then there’s no doubt (on my part). But then again, whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her life or not isn’t a big issue for me 🙂
 
I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.

Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, "Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names."

Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.
Reading this sent chills down my spine. I can’t wait for Atemi’s response to this! I can’t wait to see how he attempts to twist it.
 
Reading this sent chills down my spine. I can’t wait for Atemi’s response to this! I can’t wait to see how he attempts to twist it.
The “first born” = Mary had other children is too weak an argument to waste time on, IMO, and doesn’t really address the issue of virginity, as not having children doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

I have a more interesting question (for me). Is there a process in place which would allow the Church to adopt a belief that Mary did not remain a virgin? Does the Church rule out additional revealation regarding matters like this? I know there have been revisions in the past over things like ‘Did Jesus own possessions’? or the theology of the trinity. Does such a process of what I guess would be continued revelation exist within the Church?
 
I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.

Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, "Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names."

Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.
Still no response to this from you, Atemi.

And you have logged on today…😉
 
correction, by his posts, I think he works the night shift, so he waits to comment while at work…
No.

I would not use my employer’s time to post in online forums.

I do not have a job. I am self employed.
 
I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.
This is incorrect.

“Firstborn” does not ONLY mean what you say above.

It has multiple uses.
Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, "Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names."
Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.
No one ever said otherwise.

Like I said, it has multiple uses in Scripture.

It can indicate a known birth order, or indicate the heir of the estate, or indicate the first person born, whether male or female…

The issue is the context, and the context in the Gospels demand a birth order.

The Holy Spirit, through Luke, had used the term “only born” in other parts of that Gospel. Instead of choosing “only born” in the text in question, the Holy Spirit chose “firstborn.”

About God’s commands in the OT:

When using the term “first born” in foresight, it means the first who happens to be born. Following births are irrelevant because one does not know if more births will follow. One could not say “I will consecrate my first born when I have more kids, otherwise I will not because they would not have been my first born.” This is your point above.

That’s why that term is useful in that context (foresight). God wanted everything right off the top (so to speak). It was not up to each family’s fruitfulness to obey His command.

But…

The Gospel accounts ARE NOT referring to Christ as the first born in foresight. They are referring to Him as first born in HINDSIGHT…by decades. He was her firstborn son is how the story is laid out. The context of the passage demands such. When using the term in hindsight, it must mean first born out of others.

An example:

You are about to open a pizza parlor.

Before you do, I tell you to give me the first ten dollars you make. This is made with foresight. That in no way implies that you will make more than ten dollars or even make ten dollars at all!

But say I write a story about your exploits years later, and I say that on Aug. 31st, between 4 and 5 pm, that you made your first ten dollars, that necessarily means that I know you have since made more money since then.

These Scriptures speak of Mary’s family in hindsight. That is why every natural reading of the texts will produce the same result: Mary had more than one child.

And that, without surprise, is the witness of the entirety of the NT following.

 
Does hindsight make it different then foresight?

You really need to think that one thru a bit more.

You’re trying to equate “Firstborn” with “First Fruits”. Concept and Context are completely different. Firstborn as stated before is a legal title of the Jews.

I called my brother last night about this.

My half brother is the firstborn of his mother and her only born.

My half brother(which would be called simply a brother in the new testament) who happens to be a Bishop of the Church of God, presented the exact same argument that you did.

I asked him, Are you your mother Firstborn?
He said no.
I asked him, did your mother give birth to a child before you?
He said no.
I asked him again, Did you your mother’s Firstborn?
He said no.
I directed him to Num 3:40 and gave him the argument that VociMike gave.
I asked him a THIRD time, Are you your mother’s firstborn?
He reluctantly said yes.
I asked him, are you your mother’s ONLY BORN?
He said yes.

I reminded him that he calls his fellow church members both “Brother” and “Brethren”. None of which are actual uterine brothers.

So I asked him based on all this, Is it possible that Jesus is an Only Son of Mary?

He gave a reluctant yes…
 
The Holy Spirit, through Luke, had used the term “only born” in other parts of that Gospel. Instead of choosing “only born” in the text in question, the Holy Spirit chose “firstborn.”
Where are these instances of “Only Born” in Luke?

There you go again with the belief that the Holy Spirit dictated to a mindless Luke exactly what words to be used.

If you truely believe this, then why do you choose “Highly Favoured” over “Full of Grace”? after all the Holy Spirit chose to use Kecharitomene which examined fully in the Greek renders it “Full of Grace” instead of the protestant overreaction which resulted in a corrupt interpretation of “highly favoured”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top