1
1voice
Guest
If its not a deal breaker …
Then whats the problem …
- Status
Then whats the problem …
1
1voice
Guest
No disrespect at all intended toward those that hold with the doctrine but…
Where, in the Bible, does it say that she did?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
1voice,
In Luke 1, Gabriel was telling Mary that she would be the Mother to the Messiah. Mary was troubled by this.
If Mary was planning on having marital relations with Joseph, she would have believed that the Messiah would be the son of Joseph & Mary. Yet Mary never had plans to have children with Joseph. So she was confused about how she could bear a son if not planning on having sex.
Mary remained a virgin by choice.
Peace,
Phil
In Luke 1, Gabriel was telling Mary that she would be the Mother to the Messiah. Mary was troubled by this.
If Mary was planning on having marital relations with Joseph, she would have believed that the Messiah would be the son of Joseph & Mary. Yet Mary never had plans to have children with Joseph. So she was confused about how she could bear a son if not planning on having sex.
Mary remained a virgin by choice.
Peace,
Phil
1
1voice
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich
Where does the Bible say Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life?
No disrespect at all intended toward those that hold with the doctrine but…
Where, in the Bible, does it say that she did?
Originally Posted by Erich
Where does the Bible say Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life?
No disrespect at all intended toward those that hold with the doctrine but…
Where, in the Bible, does it say that she did?
Why in the world would she plan not to have a normal relationship with her husband even before Gabriel spoke to her?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Mary was dedicated to serving the Lord.
This article is what I’m using.
Joseph was an old man who was merely marrying Mary to be her provider while she continued her services at the Temple.
This article is what I’m using.
Joseph was an old man who was merely marrying Mary to be her provider while she continued her services at the Temple.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We can only go by tradition for much of this, however there is scriptures in the Old Testament that could explain a lack of obligation on a woman’s part to consummate a marriage as view in modern terms.
R
rbarcia
Guest
Seems like you are equating Family life today to that of 2000 years ago in an attempt to make humor.What is harder to believe than a woman remaining a perpetual Virgin is that woman bearing the Son of GOD, then going on to bear other children, and not showing the least bit of favoritism.
Picture Mary calling in children. “Jesus, Anne, Elizabeth, James, Joses, etc. Come to dinner.”
"Anne, please stop dawdling. JESUS never dawdles."
"Elizabeth, please stop gabbing with your friends. JESUS never gossips."
"James, put away your toys please. JESUS never leaves his toys out."
"Joses, please stop gobbling. JESUS never gobbles his food."
oh, and the brothers and sisters never have a TRACE of rivalry.
"No fair, Jesus NEVER gets a wrong answer at school."
"No fair, Jesus NEVER trips or falls playing games."
"No fair, Jesus never does ANYTHING wrong. It’s not like He even has to TRY to be good, and He gets everybody applauding Him. WE work HARD to do the right thing and all we get told is how much better JESUS does it than we do.
That said, was not Cain jealous of righteous Abel.
Jesus’ Brothers did show this type of childish behavior when they were adults.
John 7
1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
6 Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Originally Posted by WhoDatChristian
This issue has been debunked many times and the word brothers can refer to more than blood line but also klansmen,etc.
Nope! Jesus spoke Aramaic and not all words could be translated. This is usually a misunderstanding by many people who are not bilingual or multilingual.
This issue has been debunked many times and the word brothers can refer to more than blood line but also klansmen,etc.
On the contrary,why do so many Protestants and fundamentalist teach a novelty?
And where does the Bible teach everything must be said and thougt from the Bible?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And where were these good Jewish brothers, raised to believe in all the commandments including honor thy mother and thy father, when Mary was left alone by Jesus’ crucifixion?Seems like you are equating Family life today to that of 2000 years ago in an attempt to make humor.
That said, was not Cain jealous of righteous Abel.
Jesus’ Brothers did show this type of childish behavior when they were adults.
John 7
1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
6 Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.
B
brumano
Guest
Next is Jn.ch 7 in qoutes above. Anti marians have always felt secure in Jn7.2-11 that they have objective Scripture proving the Lord had blood brothers thereby disproving Mary’s everlasting virginity.
Everyone knows that Jn.ch 7 is not at all definitive Scripture about Mary’s virginity, those Scriptures are elsewhere, but, this is always beside the point for non catholic scriptural experts and beside the point for this op to make an issue of it.
Right away in Jn.7 they have a problem; St.John does call these men “His brothers” but he does not give us their names, so as in other passages whether the gospel writers do this intentionally, or unintentionally there is a significance to what is not known about them. Fact: he does not give their names so no one can possibly verify them as blood, or as some of them insist, half brothers of the Lord Jesus. And we cannot assume as some have tried that we can simply pour in the names from Mt.13 vs 55 ( if you try to do this with help from Acts1v 13+14 you’ll hit a dead end, because the character identities have no resemblence to the brothers in J7v2, you cannot make the assumption either that these were converted after the Resurrection, because you will never be able to insert their names back into Jn.7, where they were not given in the first place). No, as the poster insists Jn.7, 2-11 has to be taken literally and on it’s own, because he’s taken Jn.7v 3 and 5 literally and on their own in making a case against the everlasting virginity.
As we cannot know scripturally that these brothers are real brothers, that is sons of Mary and Joseph we can regard them as; again, as is done in numerous places in the Scriptures, kinds of brothers of Jesus… that, they certainly are but what kind of “brothers” are they? Well, there is very long involved and detailed analysis that could be conducted that would involve the rest of the events in Jn.7 and 8. a study of the Feast of Booths, the situation in Jerusalem and so forth, and what these brothers might have been up to in J7,2-11 and beyond, but I doubt we can do better than the Lord in telling us in J7v6-7 about who they really are.
The brothers in J7 are most likely not sons of Mary and Joseph.
Everyone knows that Jn.ch 7 is not at all definitive Scripture about Mary’s virginity, those Scriptures are elsewhere, but, this is always beside the point for non catholic scriptural experts and beside the point for this op to make an issue of it.
Right away in Jn.7 they have a problem; St.John does call these men “His brothers” but he does not give us their names, so as in other passages whether the gospel writers do this intentionally, or unintentionally there is a significance to what is not known about them. Fact: he does not give their names so no one can possibly verify them as blood, or as some of them insist, half brothers of the Lord Jesus. And we cannot assume as some have tried that we can simply pour in the names from Mt.13 vs 55 ( if you try to do this with help from Acts1v 13+14 you’ll hit a dead end, because the character identities have no resemblence to the brothers in J7v2, you cannot make the assumption either that these were converted after the Resurrection, because you will never be able to insert their names back into Jn.7, where they were not given in the first place). No, as the poster insists Jn.7, 2-11 has to be taken literally and on it’s own, because he’s taken Jn.7v 3 and 5 literally and on their own in making a case against the everlasting virginity.
As we cannot know scripturally that these brothers are real brothers, that is sons of Mary and Joseph we can regard them as; again, as is done in numerous places in the Scriptures, kinds of brothers of Jesus… that, they certainly are but what kind of “brothers” are they? Well, there is very long involved and detailed analysis that could be conducted that would involve the rest of the events in Jn.7 and 8. a study of the Feast of Booths, the situation in Jerusalem and so forth, and what these brothers might have been up to in J7,2-11 and beyond, but I doubt we can do better than the Lord in telling us in J7v6-7 about who they really are.
The brothers in J7 are most likely not sons of Mary and Joseph.
T
TrueLight
Guest
This is an awesome article. I am very much interested in learning more about the Protoevangelium of James BECAUSE it was written in 120 AD. Not like 368 A.D.
But I wonder why something so important and a big part of the history of the incarnation of Christ was not included in any of the Gospels?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
TrueLight, what “something so important” are you referring to?
Peace,
Phil
Peace,
Phil
P
pablope
Guest
1
1voice
Guest
The Gospel of James that the article uses as source material is a book that was banned by the Catholic Church according to this…
Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among “The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:” - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5
The info is in chapter 5 …
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
Also …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6977889&postcount=4
I
icamay
Guest
I had never read that before, but it makes so much sense to me. Why would God entrust our Messiah to an “ordinary” couple? Protestantism teaches that Mary and Joseph were faithful, but I’ve always wondered, why them? This explanation of Mary’s early life explains why. A woman who has devoted her life to the Temple of God (the equivalent of our nuns) and a man who was willing to be her guardian would surely give Jesus the stable and faithful home life worthy of God’s only son.
1
1voice
Guest
Except … that particular document is banned by the Catholic Church.
Refer to my post #254 … above.
or here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6977889&postcount=4
P
pablope
Guest
Sorry, you need to provide more info. It does not make sense.
If it is banned, then why does a Catholic website have it? Or why would CA cite it. There must be a later document explaining why it is available for use or why it was not included in the final canon of the NT.
R
rbarcia
Guest
where were the other 10 disciples?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
‘Other’? Are you now saying ‘brothers’ was disciples?
Look, if there had been brothers, the responsibility of caring for the mother would have fell on them, under the law of Moses.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I realize that however, the responsibility would have still fallen to the ‘brothers’ in the eyes of the Jews. The Apostles eventually came out of ‘hiding’, as it were. And it appears the Protestants want to use scriptures as if His ‘brothers’ denied Him.
Those that persecuted Christ and handed Him over to be crucified were Jews and they went by the law of Moses.
Those that persecuted Christ and handed Him over to be crucified were Jews and they went by the law of Moses.
- Status