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

[PRmerger]

Because the JW’s don’t do what I do.

Absolutely they do.

This could come straight from the mouth of a JW elder: *“No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there. That’s why you’re confused. Simply going strictly by Scripture - which is what I’m doing - avoids that. However, Christians who don’t believe in sola scriptura are the ones who actually “add” these man-made traditions into Scripture that’s not there. Remember, accurate Biblical hermeneutics is based on a proper TRANSLATION of Scripture. In fact, the Greek word for “hermeneutics” specifically means “translation,” which is USED in the NT. When you “add” anything from a literal translation of the text, you are adding “YOUR” interpretation to Scripture. By me not doing that, I’m not adding “MY” interpretation to Scripture, since I’m not “adding” anything to it.”
*

And yet you reject their right to do this. And profess this. This very same paradigm you espouse.

Curious.

 

[thetazlord]

Again which one ?

God Bless

You’re confusing denominational churches that individuals affiliate themselves with (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, etc) with the “universal” Church Christ established which is simply made up of a collection of INDIVIDUAL believers who have submitted themselves to the Authority of the God/Jesus of Scripture. So, by saying “which one,” you’re implying that only “one” denomination of Christianity can teach everything about Christianity & the Bible correctly. But if you make that assumption without comparing what they teach TO Scripture, then you’re simply taking their word for it. So, since the Church is made up of individual believers (pastors, congregants, non-members of a specific local church, etc) any individual believer who bases their faith in the sufficiency of Scripture is part of that universal Church. And therefore are able to discern with the Spirit’s help if a particular local church is teaching Scripture correctly BY comparing what’s taught to Scripture, which supports that Mary had other children.

 

[thetazlord]

Absolutely they do.

This could come straight from the mouth of a JW elder: *“No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there. That’s why you’re confused. Simply going strictly by Scripture - which is what I’m doing - avoids that. However, Christians who don’t believe in sola scriptura are the ones who actually “add” these man-made traditions into Scripture that’s not there. Remember, accurate Biblical hermeneutics is based on a proper TRANSLATION of Scripture. In fact, the Greek word for “hermeneutics” specifically means “translation,” which is USED in the NT. When you “add” anything from a literal translation of the text, you are adding “YOUR” interpretation to Scripture. By me not doing that, I’m not adding “MY” interpretation to Scripture, since I’m not “adding” anything to it.”
*

And yet you reject their right to do this. And profess this. This very same paradigm you espouse.

Curious.

And the fact they are adding words & articles to their translations that weren’t in the original Greek to de-deify Christ, as well as ignore passages in their own Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity prove that they aren’t doing what I’m doing, which is strictly going to Scripture & not adding words & articles, nor am I not ignoring anything to Scripture that’s not supported by it. This is what you’re not getting - JW’s ADD to Scripture but when that’s pointed out to them, they refuse to acknowledge it. They refuse to acknowledge that their translation ADDED words & articles that were not their in the original Greek. They refuse to accept that their own translation supports the Trinity. Therefore, they DO ADD to Scripture. Therefore, they are not sola scriptura, even though they claim to be. Likewise, ADDING to Scripture that Mary didn’t have any children contradicts Scripture that supports that she did.

 

[thetazlord]

Again which one ? I do not remember Jesus leaving a book how ever He did leave us a Church.

Jesus Christ did not command anyone to write a Gospel, but verses abound to go out and teach.

God Bless

Yes, He did. It’s called the Bible, which Jesus is the AUTHOR & perfecter of our faith, which faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (ie: Scripture). The “One True Church” bases it’s faith on the Word of God, not adding or taking away from it. And Mary having other children neither adds nor takes away from Scripture. Believing Mary remained a virgin her whole life does.

 

[thetazlord]

Let’s make it simple. Can you prove from scriptures that these half-brothers that you touted are maternal half -brothers and not paternal? Not conjectures, not suppositions, but conclusive. A yes or no answer would suffice. If yes, then chapter/verse as evidence and we shall move on from there. I shall refrain from hollering Church Tradition. We shall stick purely by the books eh?

Reminder. Conclusive, not one with possible alternate answers. I think you have conceded that the word adelphos is non-conclusive correct?

Yes. But it requires several passages of Scripture. Below is a Bible study I did on the subject:

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.’

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.”

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.

Could they be referring to Jesus’ believing ‘spiritual’ brothers?

No. John 7:3-5 tells us that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) did not believe in Him (v.5). So, these specific ‘brothers’ were not believing ‘spiritual’ brothers, but rather ‘brothers’ who were unbelieving, but related to Jesus. However, they were not ‘cousins’ or ‘children from a previous marriage of Joseph’ (see above). Matthew records the names of Jesus’ half-brothers (‘adelphos’) – James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude), & at least two unnamed half-sisters (‘adelphē’), who were listed together with Jesus, Jesus’ father, & Jesus’ mother, in His hometown of Nazareth (Mark 6:1-3), when Jesus said:
“A prophet is not without honor except in His hometown (i.e.: Nazareth) and among His own relatives (‘syggenēs’) and in His own household (‘oikia’ – ‘a dwelling; inmates of a house’)” (Mark 6:4).

Since Jesus’ ‘brothers’ do not refer to His ‘cousins’ (‘syggenis’/‘anepsios’), other ‘relatives’ or ‘kinsmen’ (‘syggenēs’) or ‘children from a previous marriage of Joseph’ since Scripture never supports that Joseph was ever married before Mary, & Jesus’ brothers are mentioned together with Jesus’ mother, Mary, & Jesus’ stepfather, ‘the carpenter’ * as a family unit, then the most natural use of the word ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) in this passage is that these ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus are His blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters. In fact, one of Jesus’ half-brothers was named after Jesus’ step-father – Joseph.

(CONTINUED…)*

 

[thetazlord]

(CONTINUED…PART 2)

Could James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude) be referring to Jesus’ disciples?

No. Although there are 2 James’, 2 Simon’s, & 2 Judas’ named amongst Jesus’ disciples (Luke 6:13-16), none of Jesus’ disciples are named ‘Joseph,’ & the Bible makes several distinctions between Jesus’ disciples & His blood-related, half-brothers (see above). Also, Simon Peter had a father named ‘John’ (John 21:15), not ‘Joseph.’ Scripture does not record the family of Simon the Zealot. Judas ‘Iscariot’ (Greek: ‘Iskariōth’ – ‘men of Kerioth’) was from a small town south of Hebron (Joshua 15:25), a southern district of Judea, about 23 miles south of Jerusalem – so he was not from Nazareth, or even Galilee [MacArthur NKJV Study Bible footnotes, Mark 14:10, p.1494], & Judas Iscariot had a father named ‘Simon’ (John 7:71), not ‘Joseph.’ Judas ‘not Iscariot’ (aka: Labbaeus/Thaddaeus) had a father named ‘James’ (Luke 6:16), not ‘Joseph.’ James had a brother named ‘John,’ a father named ‘Zebedee’ (Matthew 4:21) & a mother named Salome (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), not brothers named Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude), & not a father named ‘Joseph,’ nor a mother named ‘Mary.’ Although James the Less did have a mother named ‘Mary’ & a brother names ‘Joseph’ (Mark 15:40), he did not have other brothers named ‘Simon’ & ‘Judas’ or ‘sisters.’ and he had a father named ‘Alphaeus’ (Mark 10:3), not ‘Joseph.’

After Jesus appeared to Peter (‘Cephas’) & ‘The 12’ (1 Corinthians 15:5), He then appeared to ‘more than 500 brethren’ (v.6) & then to His half-brother, James (v.7), & then to ‘all the apostles.’ This particular ‘James’ is not James, the brother of John, or James, the son of Alphaeus, because Jesus already appeared to both of them, when He appeared to Peter & ‘The 12’ (v.5). Although this particular ‘James’ wasn’t part of ‘The 12,’ he was one of ‘all the apostles’ (v.7), because ‘apostle’ means ‘messenger, or sent one,’ & is not ‘exclusive’ to ‘The 12,’ because both Paul & Barnabas are also referred to as ‘apostles’ (Acts 14:14).

The Apostle Paul refers to ‘this’ particular ‘James’ as ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (‘adelphos’)(Galatians 1:19), one of the ‘3 Pillars’ of the Christian Church [along with Cephas (‘Peter’) & John (Galatians 2:9)], the writer of the Epistle of James (James 1:1), & he was also the leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:13). This ‘James’ is not James, the brother of John, because he was martyred already (Acts 12:2), around 37-44 A.D., & Paul wrote Galatians around 50 A.D. & the Epistle of James was written around 44-49 A.D. – which all the events above were after the death of James, the brother of John. This ‘James’ is also not James the Less, because aside from him being listed as one of ‘The 12,’ the son of Alphaeus & the ‘other Mary,’ & the brother of Joseph (Mark 10:3; 15:40,47; 16:1), there is nothing else known about him & there is no Scriptural evidence that supports that ‘this’ particular ‘James’ is James the Less:

“Early church history is silent about this man named James [the Less]. Some of the earliest legends about him confuse him with James the brother of the Lord….Accounts of his death differ. Some say he was stoned; other say he was beaten to death; still others say he was crucified like his Lord.” - “Twelve Ordinary Men,” John MacArthur, p.173

Josephus, the 1st Century A.D. Jewish & Roman historian, describes James’ relationship to Jesus as “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James” (similar to Paul’s description of him in Galatians 1:19) “& some others (or some of his companions) & when he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned.” – “The Antiquities of the Jews” 20.9.1

James, the brother of John, was beheaded (Acts 12:2), while James the Less’ death is uncertain, & James, the half-brother of Jesus died either by stoning, or by being clubbed to death:

gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

The writer of the Epistle of Jude (Judas) was the brother (‘adelphos’) of James (Jude 1:1 – written around 67-70 A.D.), the half-brother of Jesus, named in Matthew 13:55, & not any of the ‘other Judas’’ mentioned in Scripture, for the same reasons mentioned above “The John MacArthur NKJV Study Bible: The Epistle of James: Author & Date, p.1924; The Epistle of Jude: Author & Date, p.1983]. Therefore, two of Jesus’ half-brothers, James & Judas (Jude) wrote 2 of the Epistles of the New Testament (James 1:1; Jude 1:1).

(CONTINUED…)

 

[thetazlord]

(CONCLUDED…PART 3)

Do the women at the cross support that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters?

Yes! Scripture tells us that there were FOUR women at the cross while Jesus was dying, & after His death, THREE of them were ‘looking on from a distance’:

“Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:55-56)
“There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)

“Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Matthew & Mark are two of the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ – meaning they tell some of the exact same events, just slightly different, because they are written by different writers. Both Matthew & Mark, say that the women were ‘looking on from a distance’ after the death of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph are mentioned in both accounts. Matthew names the ‘third woman’ as ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (which we know are James & John – Matthew 4:21), while Mark names her as ‘Salome.’ Therefore, since Matthew & Mark are recording the exact same events, ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James & John)’ IS ‘Salome.’ Therefore, Zebedee, Salome, James, & John are one blood-related, family unit.

In John’s account, Jesus is still alive on the cross, so there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ‘Clopas’ (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). So, Mary, the wife of Clopas IS Mary, the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph. So, since James (the Less) is the ‘son of Alphaeus’ (Matthew 10:3), then Mary, the wife of ‘Clopas’ IS also Mary, the wife of ‘Alphaeus.’ Therefore, Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), the ‘other’ Mary, James (the Less), & Joseph are also one blood-related, family unit.

So, if we compare these two blood-related, family units, to the family unit of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Joseph (Jesus’ step-father), & Jesus, who are with the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus in His ‘own household’ (Mark 6:4), we discover that these ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ of Jesus are His actual, blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters, & not Jesus’ cousins, disciples, believing ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.

If Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters, why did He leave His mother under the care of an unrelated man – his disciple, John (John 19:26-27)?

At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, His half-brothers had dishonored Him (Psalm 69:6-9; Mark 6:4), & were not believing in Him (John 7:3-5), until after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 1:14). Therefore, they were not at the cross. However, John was Jesus’ blood-related COUSIN, since John was the son of Zebedee & Salome, and Salome was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (see above). Therefore, since Jesus’ brothers were not at the cross, & the rest of Jesus’ disciples were ‘fearfully’ hiding behind locked doors (John 20:19), Jesus entrusted His mother, Mary, to his only faithful disciple and COUSIN, John (John 19:26-27).

 

[onenow1]

Yes, He did. It’s called the Bible, which Jesus is the AUTHOR & perfecter of our faith, which faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (ie: Scripture). The “One True Church” bases it’s faith on the Word of God, not adding or taking away from it. And Mary having other children neither adds nor takes away from Scripture. Believing Mary remained a virgin her whole life does.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus Christ wrote a book or commanded anyone else to write a Gospel. In fact the only place where it is recorded that He wrote anything at all, is in John 8:6-8. He wrote on the ground with His finger, and to this day, we do not even know what He wrote. By the way why do all these different communities call themselves churches when there is only one Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church of which the Orthodox are the second lung as John Paul the II describes. Should they not be called communities instead of churches.

 

[thetazlord]

I never assumed that they were the same people. This is still all irrelevant to the topic.

It’s completely relevant because realizing that there are TWO sets of James’ & Joseph’s rather than one changes the family dynamics of Jesus family so much that you realize, Scripturally, that the James & Joseph are the half-brothers of Jesus, & not the James & Joseph who are sons of Alphaeus & the “other” Mary.

A. One can feel the presence of the hymen without breaking it; ask a gynaecologist. B. Where on earth did you get that idea from? It is not covered in the Bible, and contradicts Midrashim.

The Old Testament. The test to find out if a woman was truly a virgin on her wedding night was to “present” the cloth that she consummated with her husband. If there was blood on it, it proved she was a virgin on her wedding night, because her hymen would have broken & she would have bled on the cloth. Likewise, if you read Proto-James the “Mary” of Proto-James allowed her mid-wife to “test” her virginity the same way. And by doing so, her hymen would have broken, no longer making her a virgin. That’s why the “Mary” of Proto-James is not the same Mary of Scripture. Same with the “Joseph” of Proto-James. There is ZERO evidence that Joseph was elderly & had other children from a previous marriage. If this is the same Joseph as that of Scripture, then the “cousin” theory proposed by Jerome is wrong. And if this is the same Joseph, then where were THEY when Jesus was dying on the cross? Why didn’t Jesus entrust Mary to one of His older step-brothers? Where were “they” when Mary & Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census? Or to the Temple to dedicate Jesus? Or the flight to Egypt? Or their return to Nazareth? Or when Jesus went missing in the Temple when He was 12? You have many, many more Scriptural problems with these “brothers” being older step-brothers than younger half-brothers. In fact, you have ZERO with them being younger half-brothers.

Nope: “Its earliest possible date of composition would be in the middle of the first century, when passion narratives first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be in the second half of the second century” - Ron Cameron

Really? Where? Cite that “earliest” source. And if it’s so early, then does Mr. Cameron reveal “who” this source states is Jesus’ brothers? If it’s mid-first century, then it ought to specifically mention “who” they were, since they are mentioned - by name - in the Gospels, as well as in the NT epistles.

Sorry, but history is not about “proof”. It is about the weight of evidence, and we have more and closer saying that she had no other children than we have saying that she had other children. The mere fact that a text was not subsequently made part of the canon is not evidence against the historicity of its narrative.

Most of this “weight” though is from mid-to-late second & early third century onwards. What you actually find in the second century are Christians who believed Mary DID have other children, which Eusebius later quotes from & affirms. And more importantly, we have Inspired Scripture that also affirms it.

Eusebius did not have page numbers, and those are not chapter numbers.

I was referencing the page numbers in the book by either Cruze of Maier that translated the books of Eusebius to make it easier for you to reference. I know they weren’t “chapters.” I only referred to them that way in order to make it easier to find the actual quote. Work with me here!

A. Read the history of the Photian Schism. B. Read the history of the Filioque. C. Read what the Fathers of the East and West said about the whole Church. The Great Schism was merely the formalisation of a split which had happened many hundreds of years earlier.

That was a rhetorical question. I know what the Great Schism was about. My point was that if you are going to use the Eastern Orthodox as evidence then you have to take into consideration that they didn’t agree on everything, otherwise there would be no reason for the schism. Refer to my previous post.

Actually, the fact that the native speakers of a particular language have consistently understood a term in that language in a particular way is proof that the term means that.

No, they weren’t ALL “consistent.” Not ALL early Greek speaking Christians understood that Mary’s virginity was perpetual. As I posted before, many believed she had other children BASED on the Greek, which “is” supported by Scripture.

In linguistics, yes. Denotations are determined by consideration of collective usage, not by individual idiosyncrasy.

And the linguistics of the NT Greek support that Mary had other children.

Look up the meaning of “consensus”.

: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group (www.m-w.com)

Not “ALL the people in the group” (of early Catholicism) “shared” the same “opinion” about Mary’s virginal status, post-birth of Jesus. Again, many of them believed she lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus & had other children, again, which is supported by Scripture.

Look up “scholasticism”.

Irrelevant to what we’re talking about.

You are getting very far off topic here, and still failing to provide any demonstration of your claims.

ME??? I’M the one attempting to stay on subject & discuss - Scripturally - “who” the brothers of Jesus - in Scripture - were. YOU are the one going off on rabbit trails.

 

[thetazlord]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus Christ wrote a book or commanded anyone else to write a Gospel. In fact the only place where it is recorded that He wrote anything at all, is in John 8:6-8. He wrote on the ground with His finger, and to this day, we do not even know what He wrote. By the way why do all these different communities call themselves churches when there is only one Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church of which the Orthodox are the second lung as John Paul the II describes. Should they not be called communities instead of churches.

You’re missing the point of what I said. Reread my post. And you’re going off on a rabbit trail & diverging from the OP. Can we get back to it now? Why is this so hard for Catholics to do - stay on the topic of the OP which is what forums rules tell us to do???

 

[thetazlord]

The bible states the CHURCH is the pilar of ALL truth, you state scriptures is the pilar of ALL truth. The bible states to Timothy to keep to all of the teachings, those written down (the bible) and those that were given to you by word of mouth (Sacred Scripture that only the CC holds).

So you must use something other then the bible to defend your point, because the bible highly disagrees with you.

And if you are correct, where in scripture does it state that Gentiles would also be eligible to receive the word of God also, Scripture states the PETER said that it was revealed to him THOURGH the HOLY SPIRIT, not from written scripture.

“Sanctify them in the truth; your WORD is truth” (John 17:17)

“…you may learn not to exceed what is written…” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

It’s only when you deviate from Scripture by ADDING or taking away from Scripture that you “defend your point” beyond what Scripture supports. That’s the whole bases for sola scriptura. Christians who “actually” practice this DON’T ADD to what Scripture supports. Those who do are ADDING their “traditions” TO Scripture. And by NOT “adding” anything to Scripture, you find from Scripture that Mary did “not” remain a virgin & DID have other children after the birth of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

I know where the verse is. I asked you what the purpose was. You said there was a specific purpose, so I asked what it was. And please only use Scripture for your answer. What was the purpose?

It would help if you read it then. And if you read it, you’ll find out that His purpose was a promise that they WOULD receive the Holy Spirit, which wouldn’t happen until Pentecost. Jesus never stated that they were receiving the Holy Spirit…AT THAT TIME, since Thomas wasn’t there when Jesus “breathed” on them (John 20:24). So, does that mean that Thomas wasn’t “God-breathed”? So, does that mean that what Thomas said from that point on wasn’t “God-breathed” even though he was part of the Church? All the “breathing” that Jesus did was promise that the Holy Spirit WOULD come at Pentecost. It doesn’t mean that the apostles were “inerrantly” God-breathed like Scripture, because that would exclude Thomas.

You don’t understand the difference between infallible and inerrant. It would behoove you to correct this misunderstanding so that you don’t say incorrect things like that again.

If something (or someone) is infallible they are unable to be wrong. If something (or someone) is inerrant that means they make no mistakes. Same thing, just semantics. So, if someone is “infallible” that means what they say is “inerrant.” Papal “infallibility” states that what the pope declares “ex cathedra” about a certain topic is not wrong. Therefore, that particular statement would also be “inerrant” as well, because it is without error. But the minute you say SOMEONE - by themselves (not just their particular statement) - are “infallible” it’s the same as saying they are “inerrant” as well. Again, semantics.

Baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance into the New Covenant that Jesus institutued. The Old Covenant was given to man so they could be prepared and understand the New Covenant properly. When Joseph took Jesus as his son, Jesus became FULLY his son.

Again, Scripture NEVER states that baptism “replaces” circumcision. If it did, then in order to be a TRUE “replacement” then all baptism would be is a “sign” of a covenant like circumcision was (Genesis 17:11), not a means of salvation, since circumcision wasn’t a “means” of salvation. Plus, if it were a TRUE “replacement” then ONLY boys should be baptized, not girls, since ONLY boys were circumcized in the OT, not girls. So, you can’t say something is a “replacement” unless you “replace” it exactly as the former “sign” of the former covenant was.

Now, can we PLEASE get back to the OP?

 

[thetazlord]

Indeed the text STATES it as you say…the difference is in your understanding…so again…the question to you:

Why do you believe your understanding it correct? Why should your understanding be believed over others who disagree with your reading and understanding?

Because it’s not “MY” understanding. In order for it to be “MY” understanding, I’d have to “ADD” something to Scripture of “MINE” that’s not there. “ADDING” that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus isn’t IN Scripture. That would be “YOUR” understanding, as well as “OTHER” people’s understanding who share “YOUR” understanding. Going strictly by what Scripture supports & not “ADDING” to it doesn’t allow me to add “MY” understanding to it. It’s no different than the concept of the Trinity the way we both “understand” it. We aren’t “ADDING” “OUR” understanding to Scripture. We are strictly going by what Scripture supports (sola scriptura). So, even Catholics are sola scriptura when it comes to the Trinity. They don’t have to “ADD” anything TO Scripture to understand that the Trinity is Scripturally supported. Likewise, not “ADDING” anything to Scripture leads to the Scriptural understanding that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, & also had other children, because Scripture supports it without having to “ADD” anything to Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, RandyCarson has not “proven” that they aren’t Jesus’ half-brothers. As you stated, he has only provided his “opinion” which is the based on a combination of what “select” ECF’s have believed (while ignoring others, like St. Melito, etc), as well as his misinterpretation of how many women were at the cross (FOUR, instead of the THREE he incorrect “believes.”)

Excuse me?

Have you actually read my posts???

 

[thetazlord]

No I do not believe that God Breathed Scripture is wrong … I do see that you do not know how to understand the scriptures - and though you claim you are not interpreting or reading into the scriptures your own biases … you in fact do that … Also - you demand explicit passages of us - and allow yourself to appeal to implicit passages when it suits you

In this passages [multiple Gospels] - Mary is clearly identified with only Jesus - explicitly … he is not one of several sons of Mary - but of Mary - singularly … and it also names Joseph as Jesus’ father … but as you agree - Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus …

So here it is … the same passages that identify - explicitly - Joseph as Jesus’ father [which you agree is not accurate and in conflict with other passages] and which **does not **- explicitly- identify other children as being Mary’s uterine children is somehow to be interpreted as proving that Mary gave birth to these other children

Sorry - I can read the scriptures - I can place women with children - which Randy did very clearly - and there are no children - other then Jesus - of Mary to be found …

I read the entire bible and I enjoy biblical exegesis … Even before I was a Catholic - I never found the “other” children of Mary that you assert …

Well, then if you have read the Scriptures & placed the FOUR women at the cross with their respective sons, & not realized that the “James & Joseph” who are sons of Alphaeus & the “other” Mary are NOT the same “James & Joseph” who are brothers of Simon & Judas & the sisters of Jesus, then I can’t help you to realize that they are. And even if you do agree that they are different, then you are left with “who” - Scripturally - are the sons of, if not Mary & Joseph. Them not being described as the “sons of Mary” (even though they are described as the “brothers of Jesus”) doesn’t negate them being Mary’s sons or Jesus’ half-brother, anymore than Andrew being Peter’s biological brother not being so, even though we don’t know from Scripture “who” Andrew’s parents were. Nor that Martha, Mary, & Lazarus were uterine siblings, even though Scripture doesn’t say “who” their parents were. Nor that Joseph wasn’t the biological brother of James, even though James is referred to as “THE son of Alphaeus.” That’s why you have to examine ALL of the Scriptures to eliminate all of the other familial possibilities of “who” these “brothers” of Jesus are. And by using Scripture, you eliminate them being sons of Alphaeus & the “other” Mary (since numerous Scriptures only mention TWO sons (James & Joseph) not FOUR + sisters; you eliminate them being cousins or other relatives (since the NT writers USE specific Greek words in describing cousins & relatives, even when quoting Jesus or another Jew); you eliminate unbelieving “brothers” (since you can’t have a “unbelieving ‘believing’ brother”); you eliminate Joseph being married before & having children since Scripture doesn’t support Joseph being married before which would create other Scriptural problems. So, the ONLY option left - Scripturally - is that they are Jesus’ half-brothers, which cause ZERO Scriptural problems that you don’t have with the other “options.”

Why should I believe that you - theta - are so much brighter, more enlightened and intelligent?

What is your educational background? Where did you study?
What papers have you published?
What books have you written?

Because I trust the Word of God alone for my understanding - not my ingenuity. BTW, I have a Master’s degree, 12 years of Catholic school, I have studied the Hebrew & Greek, I’ve done literally dozens of Bible studies which are available on the Web, & I have written a book titled: “Not really ‘of’ us: why do children of Christian parents abandon the faith?” since you asked.

 

[zz912]

The Old Testament. The test to find out if a woman was truly a virgin on her wedding night was to “present” the cloth that she consummated with her husband. If there was blood on it, it proved she was a virgin on her wedding night, because her hymen would have broken & she would have bled on the cloth. Likewise, if you read Proto-James the “Mary” of Proto-James allowed her mid-wife to “test” her virginity the same way. And by doing so, her hymen would have broken, no longer making her a virgin.

Seriously, you are embarassing yourself with comments like these. Gynecologists LITERALLY do this every day. And they do NOT break the hymen. The reason it breaks during intercourse is that intercourse is much more “athletic” than simply touching the hymen.

You are simply spouting WILDLY ignorant rubbish about biology you simply don’t know a darn thing about. I have told you at least 3 times in this thread you are wrong about this, and yet you refuse to educate yourself and stop spouting this rubbish.

Why do you refuse correction? This isn’t up for debate. It’s not a personal interpretation. Midwives and gynecologists can test a hymen without breaking it. That is a medical FACT.

And if you get such a BASIC medical fact wrong, in this day and age of information available to you, then WHY should ANYTHING you say be believed?!?!?!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Therefore, Zebedee, Salome, James, & John are one blood-related, family unit.

Agreed. James the Greater and John the beloved are listed among the Twelve Apostles.

Salome is the daughter of Clopas & Mary of Clopas.

Therefore, Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), the ‘other’ Mary, James (the Less), & Joseph are also one blood-related, family unit.

The Other Mary is the sister-in-law of Mary (not her sister), because Joseph and Clopas were brothers.

So, if we compare these two blood-related, family units, to the family unit of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Joseph (Jesus’ step-father), & Jesus, who are with the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus in His ‘own household’ (Mark 6:4), we discover that these ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ of Jesus are His actual, blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters, & not Jesus’ cousins, disciples, believing ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.

You have not proven or even SHOWN this to be true.

Clopas and the “other” Mary, had at least five children: Simon/Symeon, James the Lesser, Jude, Joses/Joseph, Salome.

Mary and Joseph are their Aunt and Uncle. Jesus is their cousin.

 

[thetazlord]

Excuse me?

Have you actually read my posts???

Yeah, I have. And you haven’t “proven” anything. At least not Scripturally. Just what other people throughout Church history “believed” while discounting others - including Catholics - who have disagreed with them. But “majority” does not always equal truth. God = truth. God’s Word = truth (John 17:17). And God’s “truthful” Word supports that Mary had other children.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, RandyCarson has not “proven” that they aren’t Jesus’ half-brothers.

Randy doesn’t need to prove anything. It’s not about “proof”. Randy and other posters are telling you what the solid Tradition of the Church is, and backing it up with the Church’s own inseparable view of Scripture. You don’t believe? just say so and it’s all good.

Let’s all remember that this is a Catholic Forum, and Catholics enjoy home field advantage here.

Catholic doctrine is assumed to be true, so the burden of proof is on the visiting team.

The resolution is: Mary had other children besides Jesus and did not remain ever-virgin.

thetaz must prove his case.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me where it explicitly says She did not. Again yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion and I see nowhere where it is proven the She did not, just personal opinions.

If this is true, then please show me – explicitly – in Scripture “where” it states that Mary “remained” a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, just as God spells out – explicitly – that the mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the His birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:25). Remember, since the OP is about Mary “remaining” a virgin after Jesus’ birth, I don’t have to prove a negative (that Mary obeyed God’s COMMAND to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply”). You have to prove your assertion that she “remained” a virgin, since Scripture NEVER gives a command for the mother of our Savior to “remain” a virgin after His birth. And as far as the “evidence” that you’ve been provided, I can’t do anything about the fact that you reject it. It sounds more like since the evidence – from Scripture – that you reject is because that Scriptural evidence contradicts your already personal “belief.” So, it’s really an authority issue – the Word of God vs. you.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that Mary had other children since this is a Catholic forum. If we were in a Baptist forum, the burden would be on me.

All you are able to do is point to some verses that say “brother” in English, but you cannot deal adequately with the linguistic realities of the underlying Aramaic.