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

[Randy_Carson]

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
(Or How I Spent One Saturday Night)
By Randy Carson

I. Defending the Perpetual Virginity from Arguments Based on Commonly Misunderstood Scriptures

A. Adelphoi – the “Brothers” of Jesus

Many non-Catholics seek to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based upon the references to Jesus’ “brothers” as found in these passages such as these:

Matthew 12:46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. (Gr. adelphoi) 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother (Gr. adelphos) and sister (Gr. adelphe) and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother (Gr. adelphos) and sister (Gr. adelphe) and mother.”

Matthew 13:54-56
54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers (Gr. adelphoi) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters (Gr. adelphai) with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother (Gr. adelphos) of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters (Gr. adelphai) here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Although a simple reading of these passages in English appears more than sufficient to prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary was not ever-virgin, the key to explaining this verse is understanding the Greek words for “brother” (adelphos), “brothers” (adelphoi), “sister” (adelphe) and “sisters” (adelphai). If these Greek words connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is demonstrably false. However, this is not the case. The well-known Protestant linguistic reference, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents…
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5…
3. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
4. any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:23…
5. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47…
6. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9…
7. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17…
8. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17…
9. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:16; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1 Timothy 5:2)…

This wide range of usage occurs in Hebrew, Greek and English, and two examples are worthy of note:

Acts 1:15-16
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters (Gr. adelphoi), the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus.

The footnote to v. 16 in the NIV states: “The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15.” This is an example of the ninth usage of adelphoi. Obviously, logic dictates that the 120 “brothers and sisters” in Acts 1:16 did not have the same mother; Mary would have been perpetually pregnant instead!

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The second example comes from Genesis 11:26-28, 29:15:

Genesis 11:26-27
26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. 27 This is the account of Terah’s family line. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot.

From this passage, we see that Abram and Haran are brothers and that Lot, being Haran’s son, is Abram’s nephew. Lot is taken captive:

Genesis 14:12
And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

In this verse, the King James Version rightly identifies the correct relationship between Abram and Lot. And yet, he is called Abram’s brother in the following passage:

Genesis 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

The reason people in those passages were called “brothers” or “sisters” was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother” or a “sister”, because this was far easier than calling the person “the son of my mother’s sister.”

Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms intrude into the Greek text. For example, Simon is called “Cephas” which is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word, “kepha” which means “rock”. Similarly, blood-relatives who were actually cousins were still referred to as “brothers” because of the limitation of the Aramaic lexicon.

In conclusion, the facts concerning Jesus’ “brothers” are:

1. Aramaic contains no word for cousin.
2. Kinsmen (and non-blood relatives alike) were therefore referred to as “brothers” (adelphos) or “sisters” (adelphe).
3. Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily other children of Mary.
4. Therefore, the fact that the Bible refers to people whose actual relation to Jesus is uncertain cannot be used to prove that Mary was not ever-virgin.

Positively stated, we can with certainty that Jesus had adelphoi who were relatives or kinsmen, but we cannot say that the scriptures teach that Mary had other children.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

B. Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55)

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus (aka Clopas).

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. The man named Joseph (aka Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus (aka Clopas).

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

1. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.
2. As for the fourth “brother”, Simon, the second-century historian Hegesippus, as cited by Eusebius, states that he was also a son of Clopas and Mary which makes him a cousin of Jesus through his mother’s kinship with Jesus’ mother.
3. In John 19:25, we read:

“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Combining the accounts of Matthew and John, we see that four women were at the foot of the Cross: Mary of Joseph who was Jesus’ Mother, her “sister”,Mary of Clopas, Mary Magdalene and the unnamed mother of Zebedee’s sons. Since it is very unlikely that a family would have two daughters both named “Mary”, the word “sister” in John 19:25 is being used to designate a kinswoman of Mary…probably a cousin….just as the word “brother” was used to designate male relatives.

 

[Randy_Carson]

C. “Until”

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV)
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 1:24-25 (NIV)
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…”
-Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”
-But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.”
-The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…”
-May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

D. “Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

II. Additional Catholic Considerations - Still to come…

A. Complete absence of brothers and sisters in the story of Jesus being found in the Temple.

B. Complete absence of brothers and sisters at the crucifixion.

C. “Behold Your Mother” – Jesus leaves Mary in the hands of John instead of a blood brother.

D. Scripture refers to the “brothers of Jesus” but never the “sons of Mary”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary **
(Or How I Spent One Saturday Night)
By Randy Carson

I. Defending the Perpetual Virginity from Arguments Based on Commonly Misunderstood Scriptures

A. Adelphoi – the “Brothers” of Jesus

Many non-Catholics seek to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based upon the references to Jesus’ “brothers” as found in these passages such as these:

Matthew 12:46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. (Gr. adelphoi) 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother (Gr. adelphos) and sister (Gr. adelphe) and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers (Gr. adelphoi) are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers (Gr. adelphoi)! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother (Gr. adelphos) and sister (Gr. adelphe) and mother.”

Matthew 13:54-56
54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers (Gr. adelphoi) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters (Gr. adelphai) with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother (Gr. adelphos) of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters (Gr. adelphai) here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Although a simple reading of these passages in English appears more than sufficient to prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary was not ever-virgin, the key to these verses is in understanding the Greek words for “brother” (adelphos), “brothers” (adelphoi), “sister” (adelphe) and “sisters” (adelphai). If these Greek words connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is demonstrably false. However, this is not the case. The well-known Protestant linguistic reference, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents…
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5…
3. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
4. any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:23…
5. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47…
6. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9…
7. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17…
8. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17…
9. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:16; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1 Timothy 5:2)…

This wide range of usage occurs in Hebrew, Greek and English, and two examples are worthy of note:

Acts 1:15-16
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters (Gr. adelphoi), the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus.

The footnote to v. 16 in the NIV states: “The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15.” This is an example of the ninth usage of adelphoi. Obviously, logic dictates that the 120 “brothers and sisters” in Acts 1:16 did not have the same mother; Mary would have been perpetually pregnant instead!

(cont.)

 

[benhur]

This belief that Mary was not “ever Virgin” are innovations -

That is the debate. Was it really from the beginning ? That it gained foothold and grew and has been established is agreed upon.To oppose the status quo is always difficult as Helvidius found out, as did and are much later protestants. One must know the truth from the beginning to determine “innovation”. Unfortunately, there are enough evidences from various sources to fuel both sides of the argument.

Do you think that you are a better scripture scholar then the Reformers

The reformers you otherwise decry ? The reformers who don’t hold to the rest of Catholic Marion doctrine ? But for sure, it is something folks with my belief must face humbly.

If so upon what basis is your interpretation better ?

Not sure if I have any better evidences than they did. Maybe just a less contentious atmosphere, and maybe a bit more more historical hindsight.They did enough plowing.

What great Truth of the Christian faith do you bring by pushing the not ever Virgin Mary upon the faith?

Well your question is worded strangely. Like asking what Truth do I bring by bringing the Truth about Mary. I think you ask what merit or value or beneficial application does my viewpoint bring. Good question if that is what you meant. I judge your interpretation in that fashion also,that it is the seedbed of future problems with immaculateness, and assumption, and co-redemptrix, of co- mediator etc…

What I hear your side say is that the fruit of our interpretation is disrespect of her full honors, almost ignoring her. But you asked me, so the benefits of my viewpoint are a closer kinship to Mary in that she is just like us, fully a fallen human being. We are encouraged by God’s grace to her despite that. She knows what it is to need a savior, to sin as is common to man, to fall, then get up, be washed, and carry on. She understood and cherished her role in ending that cycle, a fallen cycle she shared in. Much forgiven much loved. She is just like us. She is “amongst” us, not “above” us. She was full of grace depicting not so much her state but the role she was chosen for. She is my sister in Christ, as Augustine points out. She is a unique biblical hero, as they all are. All of them form our foundation from which we come from and rest upon. Immovable links to our salvation.

When the early church worked through the various aspects of who Jesus was and What living life as Hos follower - they struggled with things like was Jesus fully human - was Jesus full God … or was Jesus fully God and fully Human … it was during these struggles that truths about Mary we also developed .

Yes “developed”. Yet I might say, just as they knew Jesus was the Messiah, even the Son of God, to be worshipped, from the beginning, they knew Mary was a virgin, who bore Him. These fundamental things did not have to be developed.

this is exactly how the Church came to recognize that Mary was the Mother of God

Agreed that the arguments for Christology crystalized with trinity wordage but not because they did not know from the beginning. Just that some started getting the wrong idea that had to be combatted. So people in the first church knew Jesus was “God” and Mary the mother, but did not say she was the “mother of God”. The term helps only one side of Jesus ,his divinity, but downplayed the human side.

I disagree that Christology study helped Marion doctrine. If anything Marion doctrine may have developed to help support Christology, irregardless of merit. Chrystology does not need partly contrived arguments. I believe an asceticism developed in the church during Christological debates , that was not there during the first church days ( at least unchecked). This false asceticism aided Marion doctrine development during those times. They did not purposely contrive because of the growing acceptance of this skewed asceticism and fit Marion doctrine accordingly.

Really - not one ever left a mark that got recorded

And if they did we would disagree on the matter anyways. Where it is claimed to be recorded we disagree. Don’t need any more recordings.

Not one story about growing up with Mary and Joseph as parents and Jesus as an older brother …

Twitter was not around

No nephew ever tired to claim the Chair of Peter because they were blood relatives of Jesus through Mary

As I am always reminded, apparent silence proves nothing

The Scriptures state that Jesus is the son of the carpenter - but you do not believe that - do you? That Jesus was the son of Joseph?

Yes, and that he had brothers and sisters. Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

So what is the belief that has come down to us through time?

Well both our views have. But if you want to judge “quantitatively”, a longer timeline of greater, more popular, acceptance, then yes, you win. But “qualitatively.”…

I

 

[Randy_Carson]

YADA;12671432:

The reformers you otherwise decry ? The reformers who don’t hold to the rest of Catholic Marion doctrine ?

Luther would have agreed with

1. Mother of God (this is a Christological dogma)
2. Perpetual Virgin (he said so himself)
   3.Assumption of Mary? Well, Luther wrote:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in Heaven. How it happened we do not know. (Martin Luther’s Works, vol 10, pg 268)

How it happened??? Obviously, Luther is referring to something OTHER THAN the normal passage from earth to heaven that all Christians experience.

That just leaves the Immaculate Conception which he denied.

But three out of four is better than you.

 

[benhur]

benhur;12671993:

Luther would have agreed with

1. Mother of God (this is a Christological dogma)
2. Perpetual Virgin (he said so himself)
   3.Assumption of Mary? Well, Luther wrote:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in Heaven. How it happened we do not know. (Martin Luther’s Works, vol 10, pg 268)

How it happened??? Obviously, Luther is referring to something OTHER THAN the normal passage from earth to heaven that all Christians experience.

That just leaves the Immaculate Conception which he denied.

But three out of four is better than you.

Well I would say 2 out of 4( just like the odds of Mary being ever virgin or not) . I would need a Lutheran perspective to say he believed Mary got “assumed bodily” into heaven. The Assumption" says "how it happened’-bodily. I believe Mary is in heaven also, just like Paul or the thief on the cross , but they did not assume, to my knowledge.

You forgot co-redemptrx and mediator.

I hear another promotion title is on the way, being petitioned for.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

Sheesh.

Psalms 22 and 69 are often referred to as Messianic Psalms. They are quoted repeatedly in the New Testament to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Jewish Scriptures—the Old Testament. The gospels quote Psalm 69 to demonstrate its prophetic nature. The gospels even have Jesus himself speaking words directly from Psalm 69.

For example, notice specifically Psalm 69:9 and John 2:17 (cleansing the temple) and Psalm 69:21 and John 19:28-30 (given vinegar to drink).

Now your argument goes like this: if this is a Messianic Psalm and is speaking of Christ, then verse 8 must also refer to Christ. It says, “ I have become estranged from my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s sons.”

Since this Psalm is used as prophecy, then it also prophecies that Mary would have other children—there would be other son’s of Jesus’ mother. Since this Psalm applies to Christ it must mean his mother had other sons. Right?

Wrong.

One cannot look at prophecies in the Old Testament and stretch them too far. Remember, in prophecy Jesus is prefigured as the Lamb of God but he doesn’t bleat like a sheep, nor did he walk on all fours. Prophecies must be interpreted carefully. This whole Psalm is not strictly prophetical of Christ. To say the whole Psalm, every statement, is from the mouth of Christ is going way too far.

To prove my point, look at verse 5 which says,

“O God, it is You who knows my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from You.”

If one claims that this Psalm uniquely applies to Christ, then we would also conclude that Jesus was a sinner since it would appear to be saying that Jesus had committed wrongs which were not hidden from God.

Nonsense.

Jesus had no sin and Mary had no other sons. A few verses in this Psalm are prophecies about Christ, but not every verse is a prophecy, nor can the whole Psalm be applied minutely to Christ.

The prophecy in verse 8 is fulfilled by the fact that Jesus was rejected by his own relatives (Mark 3:21). If the “brethren” of the Lord were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage, though they were not Mary’s biological children, legally they would be considered her sons.

+++

Oh but wait, Mary does have other children — it even says so in the book of Revelation:

Revelation 12:17
“So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”

Mary is the woman, and we are her children!

 

[spedteacherita]

Randy Carson;12672027:

Well I would say 2 out of 4( just like the odds of Mary being ever virgin or not) . I would need a Lutheran perspective to say he believed Mary got “assumed bodily” into heaven. The Assumption" says "how it happened’-bodily. I believe Mary is in heaven also, just like Paul or the thief on the cross , but they did not assume, to my knowledge.

You forgot co-redemptrx and mediator.

I hear another promotion title is on the way, being petitioned for.

Here is a link to that particular sermon:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/04/luther-on-assumption-of-mary-there-can.html

 

[YADA]

Yes, and that he had brothers and sisters. Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

Jesus gave Mary into the care of John - gave Mary as his mother - gave John as a son to Mary -

We are the brethren of Christ - He is our elder brother …John also represents us - Mary is our Mother … in Revelation - we are the other children against which Satan will war …

There is nothing in Psalm 69 that I find problematic … I am one of the Lord’s “children” - a child referred to as “my mother’s children”

Here are the facts

1] You have zero positive proof from the scriptures that Mary gave birth to any other child other then Jesus … no where is there a person referred to as a child of Mary.

2] Those who know Greek very well have shown you that the passages you assert to be definitively - are not … well … definitive.

3] In regards to the Greek - the Orthodox and Eastern Churches do not interpret the scriptures as you do.

4] There are no extant writings of these blood relatives in history.

5] You need to appeal to those who held other heterodox beliefs

6] The perpetual virginity of Mary is found extremely early [and thus closer to the time of those who were contemporary with the Apostles and even Mary herself] and the arguments to the contrary are few and the belief vigorously defended.

Your position comes down to -

1] This is what the scriptures say because this is how I interpret them - Any other interpretation is biased because you are brainwashed by your faith tradition. Mine is not biased by my faith tradition… I am telling you what the what the passages mean - believe me - I am right.

2] Why do you insist that Mary remained perpetually a virgin - its not necessary. The early Church Fathers were wrong - the reformers were wrong - we are more enlightened now.

Sorry - but I am not buying your arguments

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I would say 2 out of 4( just like the odds of Mary being ever virgin or not) .

50-50? That’s quite a concession coming from you. So we have argued to a draw. Good enough for me.

At least you have acknowledged that you cannot prove that Mary was not ever-virgin.

You forgot co-redemptrx and mediator.

These are not dogmas of the Catholic Church.

I hear another promotion title is on the way, being petitioned for.

What is it?

 

[spedteacherita]

Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Yes, and that he had brothers and sisters. Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

In my Lutheran Study Bible the commentary on that particular verse says, "stranger to my brothers. Suffering for the faith can even include alienation from one’s own family.

It cross references to Mt. 10:34-39

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 

[benhur]

Here is a link to that particular sermon:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/04/luther-on-assumption-of-mary-there-can.html

Thank you. Glad I deferred to a “Lutheran” for the “rest of the story”.

“The feast of the** Assumption** is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. **We will not invoke her as our special advocate **as the Pope teaches.”

“He rejected the festivals of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption,"

Perhaps Randy will update my batting average. Maybe I am up to 5 out 6 Marion agreements with Luther .The only miss is ever -virgin.

 

[benhur]

Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Yes, and that he had brothers and sisters. Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

In my Lutheran Study Bible the commentary on that particular verse says, "stranger to my brothers. Suffering for the faith can even include alienation from one’s own family.

It cross references to Mt. 10:34-39

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Thank you .Yes scripture says his brethren did not believe during His ministry. Helps me to understand why Jesus would give the care of Mary to John and not His brethren because of that sword of division, enemies in the household.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Yes, and that he had brothers and sisters. Even Psalms 69 has the Lord saying , “my mothers children”…

In my Lutheran Study Bible the commentary on that particular verse says, "stranger to my brothers. Suffering for the faith can even include alienation from one’s own family.

It cross references to Mt. 10:34-39

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Thank you .Yes scripture says his brethren did not believe during His ministry. Helps me to understand why Jesus would give the care of Mary to John and not His brethren because of that sword of division, enemies in the household.

Post #526 explains why Psalm 69 does not apply to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

 

[Porknpie]

And what was “proclaimed” was written down, so that we could compare what was being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). So, “that” is how “God works,” because He says so in His written word, that supports that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because He had half-brothers & half-sisters.

The reference to scripture in Acts 17:11 is the Old Testament, not the NT. And we know the apostles were using the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonicals. Scripture for them included 7 more books of the OT than what you are using. So when Catholic compare to scripture, we compare to all of scripture.

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

 

[Porknpie]

Actually, we are criticized and perceived as not making as big a deal about anything Mary, almost to the point of dishonor. Really.

Is that the seedbed for her immaculateness, then her sinlessness, then her assumption, then her co-redemptrix title, then her mediator role ?.

Behur, I appreciate your honesty in previous posts. Do you honor Mary by calling her “blessed” as scripture says all generations will do? This is the Catholic answer for your questions above. Catholics honor Mary and hold to both the written Word and what is spoken as St. Paul says that we should do.

for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; (Luke 1:48)

Why is it so important to Catholics and others that she was ever virgin ?

In truth, Catholics say the exact same thing about anyone who would break from deposit of faith on the subject of Mary.

 

[Porknpie]

The “truth” from Scripture - the Inspired Word of God - is that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus,

that is only your opinion thetaxlord. Fact is the Catholic Church, both East and West, the Orthodox and all the major reformers believe the opposite of you.

On this subject, do you believe your judgment to be fallible or infallible?

 

[spedteacherita]

Post #526 explains why Psalm 69 does not apply to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Thank you, Randy. It gets crazy and confusing sometimes with so many posts going in the same time span.