Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[Erich]

Peter DID indeed teach error, otherwise Paul would not need to “condemn him to his face” (Galatians 2:11-12).

Peter did nothing of the sort.

Peter knew that Christians were not bound by Jewish dietary laws and, therefore, he did not follow them because he ate with Gentiles. But when Jewish converts entered the scene, it seems Peter went back to observing those laws so as not to offend the converts. This was problematic because the Gentile Christians sensed a separation from their religious leader. Paul did well to correct Peter, and such fraternal correction was not disrespectful toward Peter’s office. Fraternal correction is an act of charity—even in relation to a pope, for popes are sinners!

Scripture shows ample evidence that Paul readily submitted to the authority of Peter’s office. Consider Galatians 2, which took place about 17 years into Paul’s missionary ministry after his conversion (cf. Gal 1:18, 2:1): “I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain” (Gal 2:1-2).

It seems from this passage that Paul wanted to be certain that his own teaching was in conformity with the teaching of Peter and the apostles. Indeed, although Paul considered himself an apostle, he considered himself least among them: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, [Jesus] appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:8-9).

So, how many more Red Herrings are you planning on asking me, to avoid STRICTLY dealing with the OP?

No one is dragging any red herrings across your path. Because the subject of the OP truly is a question of authority: “Why is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine?” If the underlying issue in every problem you have with the Catholic Faith is an issue of authority, which it is, then why is getting to that issue quickly and directly considered a “red herring?” It’s not changing the subject, it’s getting to the heart of the subject.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I could, because “beyond a reasonable doubt” is based on evidence. And there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin her whole life. Therefore, I would win the court case & you would lose.

Two points.

We are not limited to scripture, and you know this. Why? Because atheists do not accept that the Bible is the Word of God simply because it says it is…that’s a circular argument. So, when you are trying to convince an atheist that there is good evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus or the resurrection, etc. you HAVE to go outside the Bible to make the case first that the Bible is reliable. Only then can you use the Bible as a reference.

If you do this when engaging in apologetics with non-believers, you’re not going to suddenly change the game and say, NOW we only go by the Bible. That’s YOUR weakness not mine. I can’t help it if you do not accept the full revelation of God which includes both Scripture and Tradition.

Now, I will try as best I can to prove certain doctrines to you from scripture alone because that’s where you’re at, but with some doctrines, I can only show that nothing in scripture is OPPOSED to that doctrine. That’s the case with the Perpetual Virginity.

If Mary had other children, the Church would have been teaching that all along. You have not answered as to why the Church would simply make this up.

But it’s not my burden to prove that the Bible teaches that Mary was ever-virgin. An infallible Church teaches it, and that is sufficient. Thus, the real question is whether the Church really is infallible. But that’s another thread.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I have failed to open your eyes to what Scripture actually supports. But then again, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit, not me. I can only show you.

Do you honestly believe that it is the concern of the Holy Spirit in Scripture to show people that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph? Where does the axe you’re grinding on this issue come from? Do you have an issue with Christians holding to a pious opinion of her ever-virginity (which, by the way, is held to by not more than a few non-Catholics)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you honestly believe that it is the concern of the Holy Spirit in Scripture to show people that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph? Where does the axe you’re grinding on this issue come from? Do you have an issue with Christians holding to a pious opinion of her ever-virginity (which, by the way, is held to by not more than a few non-Catholics)?

thetaz is a former Catholic.

 

[Per_Crucem]

thetaz is a former Catholic.

Ah…when in doubt, convertitis always explains it.

 

[wmscott]

thetaz is a former Catholic.

Well that can explain a lot. Could it be that someone was poorly catechized in the faith and while in their weakness was proselytize away from he catholic Church I wonder.

 

[onenow1]

You might find this interesting.

Thank you, you have jogged my memory.

God Bless

 

[Cathoholic]

Well. This thread “is coming in for a landing” if for no other reason than the sheer volume of its posts.

thetazlord has wasted a lot of “bouncing-electrons” trying to DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (but could not come close).

I asked many times for ONE verse denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One verse!

Taz could not do it.

Thetazlord pointed to “brothers” then for all practical purposes used circular reasoning that “brothers” means “uterine brothers”. When asked WHY, Taz said because the term “brothers” was used. When asked why this means “uterine brothers” Taz said because the term “brothers” was used. Taz didn’t put it quite this way, but might as well have.

Taz was shown how “brothers” explicitly means differing things—NINE differing things in the New Testament as Randy showed. I asked how Taz can link “brothers” to “uterine brothers”? Taz couldn’t. Taz just kept asserting it is so . . . because . . . . Taz says it is so (this is the fallacy of ipse dixit).

Taz didn’t state it that way. Taz merely said: “The Bible teaches it!” But many see the Bible “teaching” something diametrically opposed to the Taz denial.

Taz tried to fill all of this out, by telling everybody here what “the Greek” REALLY means. Taz tried to show how Mark, Luke, and John never use Adelphos for anything other than “uterine brother”.

When Mystophilus (who isn’t even Catholic) showed Taz St. Luke’s broad usage of adelphos in Acts (which St. Luke also authored), thetazlord ignored it.

When I showed thetazlord St. John’s gospel explicitly uses the feminine form of adelphos, (adelphae – see post 364) to show NON-UTERINE sisters, Taz ignored it.

When asked how Taz knew the verses Taz was citing concerned “uterine brother”, Taz went back into circular reasoning.

When I asked Taz WHY if the Greek is so crystal clear in asserting “brothers” mean “uterine brothers” concerning Jesus brothers WHY in the world would this huge fact slip right by the Greek speaking early Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom who’s native language was Greek?

How did Taz respond? . . . . . . Taz ignored it.

Taz genuinely thinks HE’S RIGHT and ALL the Greek speaking ancient Church Fathers were WRONG! And Taz doesn’t see the arrogance in all of this (“Everyone else throughout the ages is wrong and I’M right about an ancient foreign language!”) type of attitude.

When I reminded Taz that the Patristic evidence even suggested that St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and invited him to show contrary (and I will give several Patristic sources affirming what I am asserting) . . . Taz ignored it.

**
I asked for ONE verse where it says ANYBODY is a child of Mary (in the biologic not spiritual sense) other than Jesus!?**

One explicit verse?!

Taz couldn’t do it.

Taz just kept asserting “brothers” is it (despite the fact that “brothers” has NINE different meanings from Scripture alone).

This is the circular reasoning again. This is also the fallacy of ipse dixit.

**I asked for ONE verse where it says the Blessed Virgin Mary is explicitly described as the mother of ANYBODY (other than Jesus biologically or us in a spiritual sense)!? **

Continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

I asked for ONE verse where it explicitly says ANYBODY is a child of Mary (in the biologic not spiritual sense) other than Jesus!?

Taz couldn’t do it.

**I asked for ONE verse where it says the Blessed Virgin Mary is explicitly described as the mother of ANYBODY (other than Jesus biologically or us in a spiritual sense)!? **

One verse! That’s all I asked for.

But Taz couldn’t do it.

I showed WHY Scripture taught the Perpetual Virginity IMPLICITLY, and how we just don’t get explicit descriptions of events that are so sublime.

I showed WHY the Blessed Mother in Luke’s Gospel shows that the Blessed Mother intended to REMAIN Virginal (and Taz had no answer other than to assert the “brothers” thing).

And I asked Taz WHY in some of those SAME verses that he cites (concerning “brothers”) Jesus is described in SINGULAR terms (not plural) concerning Mary’s “SON” (not “sons”) and Joseph’s “son” (not Joseph’s “sons”).

Taz ignored it.

Taz attacked a straw man in the Taz complaints about the Church appealing to the Protoevangelium.

Why is it a straw man? Because the Church NEVER appeals to the Protoevangelium as a source for this doctrine. It is there but the Church NEVER appeals to it authoritatively. This whole appeal to the Protoevangelium is only present in Taz’s mind.

Taz asserted “until” in Matthew’s Gospel really means a change in status later. When challenged on this, Taz gave a bunch of verses in Matthew (some of which contradicted his point) implying, “Well maybe the New Testament does this but MATTHEW’S Gospel doesn’t.

When shown why THAT was wrong, Taz appealed to bogus invented dispensational (rapture) theology. More errors to support prior errors.

When I pointed out there isn’t one explicit citing of an ancient Church Father supporting the Taz views, Taz ignored it. Then when someone gave Taz a “gentle reminder” Taz rattled off Scripture authors (who in most cases Taz wouldn’t even know the author if it weren’t for the Church), pretending they all think like Taz does (despite being shown elsewhere in the thread none of them do).

Then Taz claimed Tertullian and Helvidius as “fathers” of the Church (“ECFs”). When I asked what Taz was basing Helvidius being a “father” on since there are NO WRITINGS that we know exist from Helvidius, Taz ignored it.

I again asked for ONE Early Church Father cited (not asserted) that taught anything like Taz taught. Then Taz switched gears and said how they are just fallible men and how Taz only sees Scripture as authoritative.

When someone else asked Taz, if Taz is going to assert this, then Taz MUST his include authority to interpret. Taz threw a few barbs in on the Church (i.e. Paul opposing Peter to his face) and concluded . . . because Peter (MAY have) sinned here, Peter cannot be infallible. Taz ignore the fact that St. Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter, and Taz was confused over the issue of infallibility vrs. impeccability.

Taz also forgot to mention that St. Paul succumbed to the Judaizers regarding the circumcision issue in the same way that St. Peter did about the table fellowship issues (Acts 16:3)—Does this nuke St. Paul’s ability to teach infallibly? If Taz is going to be consistent it would nuke St. Paul. But Taz doesn’t let these facts get in the way of a personal theory of his, a tradition of men that nullifies the Commandment of God (for the Church to teach ALL that I have commanded you).

Then Taz stared to get melodramatic about “PLEASE PLEASE” remain on the OP topic, when Taz could see his appeal to his own authority was getting him in deeper trouble and despite the fact that “authority” is a natural associated issue here.

When I invited Taz to come and talk about the authority issue on a differing thread (that was started based on other Taz errors directly concerning “authority”), Taz pleaded that he has a life and can’t spend the time (despite having many points about authority HERE—many of which were wrong).

There are so many errors asserted by Taz here on this thread that it was hard to know where to begin this post.

• Not ONE verse asserting Mary as biologic Mother of anyone but Jesus
• Not ONE verse asserting ANY CHILDREN as being biologic sons or daughters of Mary
• Ignoring the fact that “brothers” (adelphos) has at least NINE New Testament meanings
• Ignoring the fact that the Blessed Mother intended to remain Virginal in Luke’s Gospel
• Ignoring the fact that the Blessed Mother is implicitly prophetically delicately described as a Perpetual Virgin in Ezekiel.
• Not ONE quote from ancient Church Fathers denying the Blessed Virgin as being a Perpetual Virgin (and ignoring MANY Fathers who asserted as such).
• Citing the heretics Tertullian and Helvidius as his “fathers”.
• Asserting Greek lessons to everyone here that ignore Greek Fathers
• Ignoring that St. John Chrysostom explicitly used heos and heos hou interchangeably
• Ignoring the authority aspect while implying his . . . (you know what I am going to say) his authority to interpret Scripture
• Appealing to dispensational theological inventions (Rapture theology) to try to harpoon a 2000 year old Tradition (despite the Rapture being a theological novum itself)
• When getting cornered on the “authority issue” appealing to stay on OP topic in a melodramatic fashion
• Ignoring the issue of WHY St. Joseph would refrain at any time from marital relations (completely ignoring St. Jerome’s rhetorical question)

The denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

The denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary changes who Jesus is, as I have pointed out.

 

[wmscott]

Thanks Cathoholic

Great summation

Brings to mind what Albert Einstein said " Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[onenow1]

Rev 11:19 And the temple of god in heaven was opened
and there was see the ark of His covenant in the temple.

Rev 12. and a great sign appeared in heaven a woman clothed
with the sun,and the moon was under her feet and upon her
head a crown of twleve stars.

The word and{KAI in Greek text} shows a continuation from
Rev. 11:19

This begs the Question ?

How did ST. John know it was a woman he saw ? Nothing defiled can enter heaven.

In rev 12 four persons are mentioned the woman 8 x.
Satan.

And a male child who is Jesus Christ.

Since three of the four persons are identified,context and
common sense demand the woman be identified.

She is the mother of God, Jesus Christ a Divine Man.

God Bless

 

[benhur]

In fact, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Catholics calling their pastors “Father.”

From this link:

Thank you .That is why I am not literal about this issue and do not lay it against anyone.

 

[benhur]

Yes…you certainly do…but you look at them differently than we do…

Thank you for being reasonable for some in frustration perhaps say we have no biblical , historical interpretation of evidences for our Marion doctrine.

and pick and choose those that agree with what you have previously been told…correct?

Well, we do not pick and choose evidences though we definitely do pick and choose interpretations thereof (as we all do).

Everything is evidence for something, based on interpretation.

Do you agree with the quotation below:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

I think so. I think individuals and churches do this , including C and CC or as noted above with the “as we all do”.

 

[benhur]

You’ve seen the scriptures quoted here. We turn our heads when we don’t like what we read, eh?

And what do you do when you see scriptures quoted to say something you disagree with ? Do you lap it up and say, "I like this, and will discard what I used to like. " ?

In light of who Christ himself tells us he is, I find it odd that a person who claims Christianity would find absolute truth offensive.

No, I think it odd for a Christian to think all his views are absolutely truthful.

 

[benhur]

**
But Taz couldn’t do it.**Perhaps, but just as some opposing questions are not answered either (key word “some”).

• Not ONE verse asserting Mary as biologic Mother of anyone but Jesus

The rope that ties the hands.

• Asserting Greek lessons to everyone here that ignore Greek Fathers

No one would ever dare to go along to get along. ??

• Ignoring that St. John Chrysostom explicitly used heos and heos hou interchangeably

Just as you ignore some of his mistakes, or his heretical ordination.

Ignoring the authority aspect while implying his . . . (you know what I am going to say) his authority to interpret Scripture

Ignoring his claim of divine revelation and unction,irrespective of persons

• When getting cornered on the “authority issue” appealing to stay on OP topic in a melodramatic fashion

He is in good company. “By whose authority ?” was used much to corral Jesus and his followers, or those healed by Him.

• Ignoring the issue of WHY St. Joseph would refrain at any time from marital relations (completely ignoring St. Jerome’s rhetorical question)

Right. Was it not part traditional speculation to say Joseph was ever virgin also.

He does not ignore Jerome’s skewed view of marriage and sex, as when he responded to Jovinianus.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

You said:

QUOTE:
Only if brother does not mean brother and sister sister and children children.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. You ASSUME an Americanized view of “brother”. Scripture doesn’t. The ancient Church Fathers don’t. The Church doesn’t.

Your view is an invention.

---

Go ahead and tell the readers WHY St. Joseph “knew Mary not” when Mary was pregnant with Jesus.

You toss insults around about St. Jerome (“Jerome’s skewed view of marriage and sex, as when he responded to Jovinianus”) but refuse to answer his points.

Forget about what you personally think, and answer St. Jerome’s rhetorical question. . . . I’ll be waiting to see how you answer it. (here it is again for you - click here to see St. Jerome’s rhetorical question)

---

Benhur. You also said:

QUOTE:
Was it not part traditional speculation to say Joseph was ever virgin also.

Nice try. I am not taking the bait. “Was it not part traditional Protestant speculation to say the Book of James is an Epistle of straw”?

Benhur. You quote me saying (bold and ul mine). . .

QUOTE:
Ignoring the fact that the Blessed Mother is implicitly prophetically delicately described as a Perpetual Virgin in Ezekiel.

Then you reply . . .

QUOTE:
You deny your own catechism then with the implicitly revealed in scripture- " Mary is not a revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition.”

I don’t deny anything in the CCC.

And I never said this doctrine can be “clearly demonstrated from the New Testament”. I said it can be implicitly demonstrated from the Old Testament prophecies and the “intention” to remain Virginal can also be inferred from the Angel Gabriel and Mary’s discussion in Luke chapter 1.

Go back and re-read my posts or even re-read your own posts for the answer.

I specifically said (in post 570)

• And if you turn to Oral Tradition it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Fathers it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Eastern Churches (including their Liturgy) it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Church today it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the authority of the Councils it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to implicit teachings of Sacred Scripture it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• And if you turn to the Saints throughout the ages it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But alas . . . .

• And if you turn to heretics it DENIES the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(Notice I NEVER said this doctrine can be “clearly demonstrated from the New Testament”.)

And you HAVE turned to heretics benhur if you look to people like Tertullian and Helvidius for answers.

If you don’t turn to them, WHY think YOUR personal interpretation to be infallible? Then we are back to the authority issue again. You can’t side-step the authority issue benhur.

Or you HAVE fallen into private interpretation if you “go it alone” here (“me and my Bible”).

YOU said in post 890:

No, I think it odd for a Christian to think all his views are absolutely truthful.

That’s interesting. I think it odd for a Christian to DENY their are some people who God will guide into all truth.

You say:

I think it odd for a Christian to think all his views are absolutely truthful.

Yet JESUS SAYS

JOHN 16:13a 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;

---

So you . . .

1. Don’t believe John 16:13a
2. Believe John 16:13a but the Spirit of truth hasn’t arrived yet
3. Believe John 16:13a but my interpretation of John 16:13a isn’t what the verse explicitly says
4. Believe John 16:13a but I think Jesus didn’t continue this protection after the Apostles. As a matter of fact Jesus didn’t even protect them. He just protected the ones who wrote Scripture.
5. Believe John 16:13a and agree, the truth IS out there somewhere and some people have been led into all truth, but I deny it is within the Catholic Church (in which case you are going to have to explain WHO has that protection by the Holy Spirit today and if you are NOT looking for this WHY aren’t you looking for the fullness of truth?).
6. Believe John 16:13a and agree, the truth IS out there somewhere and some people have been led into all truth, and I affirm it is within the Catholic Church

Which one is it benhur?

Incidentally. I don’t think “my views” are “all the truth”. I know the Church has the fullness of truth. I try to conform and they have authority to give me correction when I am wrong.

your motif is like a math class. You and your math book are all on your own.

My motif is like a different math class. Me and my math book are on your own, but then the math teacher can come around and check our work and correct our work too.

Big difference there.

I said:

You have not shown ONE VERSE! . . .

Not ONE verse asserting ANY CHILDREN as being biologic sons or daughters of Mary

 

[brian_custer]

nice job there catho; a PhD quality essay on the truth about Mary’s PV

BZ

 

[Cathoholic]

I said:

QUOTE:
(You have not shown) ONE verse asserting ANY CHILDREN as being biologic sons or daughters of Mary

You replied:

Like tying someone’s hands then saying, " why can’t we shake on it ?"

WHY do you think me asking for people identified as kids of Mary is “tying your hands”?

Why do you think asking for Mary described as the biologic mother of anyone other than Jesus is “tying your hands”?

I don’t understand it. I mean after all, isn’t that your whole point?

Isn’t your point that the DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is SOOO OBVIOUS that it is just “dripping” in Scripture?

And I am demanding ONE VERSE for you to to back it up. That’s all. One verse.

So far I haven’t seen any. NOT ONE!

And I am ALSO asking for ONE Early Church Father denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And so far you (or anyone else here) has not been able to show me ONE. I’ve seen it alleged, but no evidence, no quotes, etc.

Then you said:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.” Ez.46:1

Go back and re-read it. You are mixing up the “outer gate” with the gate of “inner court.” This is a different gate.

The Eastern HEAVENLY gate is closed (and always has been) much more completely so in its New Covenant fulfillment—In the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nobody traverses this gate (then or now)!

This doesn’t mean that ALL GATES to the Heavenly Jerusalem are closed banhur.

Revelation 21:25 explicitly talks of gates that ARE open in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

But nobody has or will traverse the Eastern Gate of this prophecy (Ezekiel 44:1-2). That Gate is for God ALONE (“no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”).

I affirm BOTH Ezekiel 44 AND in Ezekiel chapter 46 later when God is giving instruction to the Priests. You do NOT affirm both passages. (Or as soon as you assert Jesus in Ezekiel 44:1-2 your denial concerning the Blessed Virgin falls like a house of cards)

You said about me ignoring thetazlord points:

Ignoring his claim of divine revelation

And YOU are ignoring MY claims of divine revelation!

And the ancient Ebionite heretics would say Mary was never virginal after marriage. No Virginal conception or birth of Jesus. They would claim that is “divine revelation” too.

That didn’t get us anywhere did it? A spiritual Mexican standoff? Is that what God’s revelation is reduced to?

You NEED to go further than that.

You NEED someone who has God-given God-protected authority.

A “me and my Bible motif” has led to theological “Brownian motion”. It has been like spilling a jug of marbles all over a hard floor and wondering why they don’t stay in the same place.

You NEED a God-given God-protected authority to correct such errors.

You will undoubtedly say it is NOT the Catholic Church. I would be more than happy to discuss that on another thread. I am not trying to defend that principle here on this thread. But my point here is, even your sola Scriptura paradigm itself cannot work.

You said about the Eastern Church Fathers . . .

Just as you ignore some of his mistakes, or his heretical ordination.

I don’t know what you are talking about. If you are asserting the Fathers DID make mistakes, I agree.

But the Fathers also recognized an authority hierarchy whereby differences can be solved that went beyond merely “my interpretation of Scripture”.

It actually has people who have God-given and God-protected authority (“take it to the Church”).

You think this (“take it to the Church”) means, “insist on your own Bible interpretation”. But it can’t mean that.

Someone had to settle the differences even about what Scripture is and what Scripture was NOT (the Canon). This could ONLY be done with people who have authority.

I ignore no mistakes of the Fathers that the Church corrects them on.

YOU have ignored a doctrine that ALL the Fathers spoke upon in UNISON.

YOU have ignored a doctrine that asserts the specialness of Jesus, to follow after phony Bible-guys and Bible-gals that are think they are spiritual pied pipers as they come up with ever-new theological inventions in their conceit.

You have ignored Scripture, Tradition, the Eastern Fathers, the Western Fathers, history, the Councils, . . . even ignored your Protestant founders all to follow after . . . .

. . . . traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God (falsely labeled as “claims of divine revelation”).

You will have to give account of that some day, as will I regarding what I see too.

 

[brian_custer]

take a sip of water brother; YOU WIN; nice job

 

[ericc]

could they be referring to jesus’ cousins?

No. The specific greek word for ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’) is only used once in the new testament to describe barnabas’ ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’) mark (colossians 4:10). The greek word for ‘relative, or kinswoman’ (‘syggenis’) is also only used once to describe elizabeth’s relationship to mary, the mother of jesus (luke 1:36), which is a derivative of the greek word, ‘syggenēs,’ which can be translated ‘countryman, kinsman, or cousin,’ (luke 1:36,58 - kjv). So, if jesus & the new testament writers meant for the ‘brothers & sisters’ of jesus in matthew 12:46-50 & matthew 13:54-57 to mean jesus’ ‘cousins,’ they would have used one of these greek words (‘anepsios’ or ‘syggenis’/‘syggenēs’) like they did in other passages in the gospels & the new testament epistles, rather than ‘adelphos’ & ‘adelphē.’

You are arguing from silence. The gospel writers even if they did not choose to use the word cousin as in Acts and chose another word adelphos to mean a more generic and wider meaning of brothers does not prove they are blood brothers or half blood brothers. Examples of alternate meaning of adelphos other than blood brothers are:

Matthew 14:3
Mark 6:17
Luke 3:1

They all mentioned that Herod and Philip being brothers. In fact they are paternal half brothers. Directly from the gospel writers adelphos was used to denote non-blood half brothers. Arguing from silence really does not prove anything.

could they be referring to jesus’ disciples?

No. Jesus makes a distinction between his biological mother & brothers outside (matthew 12:46-47) & his disciples, who are his ‘believing brothers’ inside, who ‘does the will of my father’ (matthew 12:48-50). Since it is clear that jesus’ ‘mother’ in this passage is mary – jesus’ natural & earthly, blood-related mother, then there is no reason to believe that the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) in the same verse are referring to anyone other than jesus’ blood-related half-brothers. Plus, you can’t have an “unbelieving believing brother.”

In Matthew 12:46-47, you made an assumption that the external brothers and his mother are “disbelievers”. You made another assumption that the brothers are biological. Both are not proven by you. There is no reason to believe that the adelphos are blood brother, full or half. Interestingly, you didn’t identify who is the father of the so-call blood half brothers. You may be accusing the Virgin Mary of adultery or remarrying which you have yet to prove. Fyi the disbelieving brothers are found in John 7:5. They are not named. You are making the mistake whenever the word brothers, brethren, adelphos is mentioned, it must refer to the same group of people. Or that they must be disbelievers. Nothing warrants that assumption. I could not locate one named disbeliever, only a generic group of disbelievers in John.

on the day of pentecost, jesus’ remaining 11 disciples are mentioned with ‘the women’ [possibly, the women that were at the cross (matthew 27:56), the disciples’ wives (1 corinthians 9:5), and/or martha & mary (john 11:1)], mary, the mother of jesus, & jesus’ ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’)(acts 1:13-14), along with the ’brethren’ (‘adelphos’)(acts 1:15), such as joseph/barsabbas (justus) & matthias (acts 1:23). [note: Although the greek word for ‘brothers’ to describe jesus’ half-brothers in v.14 is the same greek word for ‘brethren’ in v.15, the ‘brethren’ in v.15 refers to all the ‘believing brothers’ as a whole that were there – which includes the literal blood-related half-brothers of jesus in v.14, who had come to faith in him, after jesus appeared to his half-brother, james (1 corinthians 15:7), which was sometime between jesus’ resurrection & pentecost.

Jesus’ half-brothers (‘adelphos’) along with his mother, mary, & his disciples were with jesus when he went down to capernaum (john 2:12) & when jesus was with his disciples in jerusalem when he overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple (john 2:13-17), which fulfilled the prophecy of king david, which tells us that the mother of the future jewish messiah was to have children (‘plural’)(psalm 69:6-9), who would ‘dishonor him,’ by ‘not believing in him, which was fulfilled in john 7:3-5, which also makes a distinction between jesus’ unbelieving half-brothers (‘adelphos’) & his ‘believing’ disciples.

Which item proves your case? You made a number of suppositions but which one is fact and lead to the answer? None… Taking a verse from here and there and marrying together really does not prove anything. Anyone can string selective verses together to market a point…

could they be referring to jesus’ believing ‘spiritual’ brothers

?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that these brothers are the biological children of Mary through the Scriptures. We are not asking you to prove what they are NOT. Making unproven statements like “one of Jesus’ half-brothers was named after Jesus’ step-father – Joseph” is really of no value and taking up word count. Statement like “most natural use of the word ‘brothers’” is really your own preference and not fact. Please try not to argue from silence like “the Scripture never supports that Joseph was ever married before Mary”. I could say the same thing about Mary never having sexual relations too and carry as much weight as your statement , which is none.
[/quote]