To most people, a woman who is no longer a virgin is just that. Nothing more... unless you're a Catholic with an unceasing need to put Mary (and all virgins) into a pseudo-exalted, unBiblical state. It equates virginity with some sort of purity, thereby shaming all women who have had intercourse. It's very, very strange!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Question About Mary
- Thread starter WIP
- Start date
- Status
Walpole
Member
The difficulty understanding why Mary would be a perpetual virgin stems from failing to recognize that Joseph and Mary's marriage was not ordinary. The teleological end of their marriage was not procreation, but rather to point to the Kingdom of God. Since they were in the presence of the Most High as the parents of the Incarnate Son of God, their life of continence, like that of their Son's, points to the heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one.
Mary's perpetual virginity speaks to Christ's divinity.
As a reminder, there is no Scripture supporting the idea that Mary had subsequent maternities giving Jesus uterine siblings. None.
In Ezekiel 44, the prophet is given a vision of the holiness of the East gate of the Temple. We know our Blessed Lord said that His body is the true temple. (cf. John 2:19-21) Hence if Christ is the true temple prophesied by Ezekiel, then the gate by which He entered into this temple is Mary. She is the gate through which the God came in the flesh. The prophet says the East gate (quite significant) is shut because the Lord has entered by it. For this reason it shall remain shut.
Mary's perpetual virginity speaks to Christ's divinity.
As a reminder, there is no Scripture supporting the idea that Mary had subsequent maternities giving Jesus uterine siblings. None.
In Ezekiel 44, the prophet is given a vision of the holiness of the East gate of the Temple. We know our Blessed Lord said that His body is the true temple. (cf. John 2:19-21) Hence if Christ is the true temple prophesied by Ezekiel, then the gate by which He entered into this temple is Mary. She is the gate through which the God came in the flesh. The prophet says the East gate (quite significant) is shut because the Lord has entered by it. For this reason it shall remain shut.
Corn Pop
Member
There is no scripture that leads to believe Mary was ever virgin or that being ever virgin makes someone more special. There is scripture that says Jesus had brothers, if people want to believe they were not his brothers because it would contradict there belief then prove they were not his brothers. It can't be done because the original word is brother. Can say it was cousin but cant prove it was cousin.
Walpole
Member
Slap down a verse from Scripture which testifies to her supposed subsequent maternities.
Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.
Furthermore, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.
You cannot force a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, when you see "brother" listed and you assume it must refer to a uterine or agnate sibling, you are doing so based on a bias by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.
Here are experts in ancient Semitic culture affirming my assertion...
"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14
In describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel...
"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16
"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106
Source
You cannot impose a 21st century Western nuclear family structure with our own use of “brother” to that of Jewish culture in antiquity. The term had a much broader use in antiquity. And again, Scripture NEVER mentions any uterine siblings of Jesus.
Corn Pop
Member
I'm trying to figure out who the women are at the crucifixion.
So there is
Jesus mother.
Jesus aunty wife of cleopas.
Mary Magdalene.
Salome.
Mary the mother of James and Joseph is not the same person as the mother of zebadees sons James an John, that is, Salome who is Zebadees wife.
Just thought I would do some study and try figure it all out.
So there is
Jesus mother.
Jesus aunty wife of cleopas.
Mary Magdalene.
Salome.
Mary the mother of James and Joseph is not the same person as the mother of zebadees sons James an John, that is, Salome who is Zebadees wife.
Just thought I would do some study and try figure it all out.
Walpole
Member
Bingo!
John 19:25: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
This Mary the wife of Clopas (Cleophas) is called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas in Matthew 13:55. Matthew abbreviates this list by naming (likely) the oldest two, James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 as this Mary’s (of Clopas) sons.
Ergo, when James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are called Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew 13:55, this can not mean uterine siblings based on the fact that St. Matthew names a different Mary as their mother.
Once again, you cannot impose a 21st century Western nuclear family structure and our own use of “brother” to that of Jewish culture in antiquity.
Corn Pop
Member
It says standing by was Jesus mother, her sister, and Mary magdalene.
These is no clear link of Marys sister so that's Jesus Aunty being the mother of James and Joses and Jesus cousins as the person mentioned who was there in the other text.
And it's also hard to get the full understanding. Is it 3 or 4 people named?. Like how Salome is mentioned could get confused as it being Mary's daughter as it says Mother of James and John, and Salome. Yet Salome is another person there I guess the mother of zebadees children John and James.
Standing close was Jesus mother(1) and his mother's sister(2), Mary the wife of Clopas(3), and Mary Magdalene(4).
Why are there so many Mary's gets confusing. Marys sister was called Mary?, So there parents gave there daughters the same name?. That would have been confusing. Have to say Mary 1 and Mary 2.
These is no clear link of Marys sister so that's Jesus Aunty being the mother of James and Joses and Jesus cousins as the person mentioned who was there in the other text.
And it's also hard to get the full understanding. Is it 3 or 4 people named?. Like how Salome is mentioned could get confused as it being Mary's daughter as it says Mother of James and John, and Salome. Yet Salome is another person there I guess the mother of zebadees children John and James.
Standing close was Jesus mother(1) and his mother's sister(2), Mary the wife of Clopas(3), and Mary Magdalene(4).
Why are there so many Mary's gets confusing. Marys sister was called Mary?, So there parents gave there daughters the same name?. That would have been confusing. Have to say Mary 1 and Mary 2.
Last edited:
Corn Pop
Member
I have to make a correction above as it's Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome, not Mary mother of James and John that's the mother of zebadees children who is mentioned as someone else there.
The Mother of James and Joses is there and also the Mother of zebadees children who is John and James..
The Mother of James and Joses is there and also the Mother of zebadees children who is John and James..
Last edited:
Corn Pop
Member
Matthew 13:55 mentions Joseph, Mary, and James and Joses as Jesus brothers.
It doesn't say Joseph, Mary, and the sons of cleopas.
There is Jesus with his mother Mary and his dad Jospeh and his brothers James and Joses as scripture says. And there was a Mary standing by at the cross and who was the mother of James and Joses and other scripture clarifies Jesus mother was there. It does not say it was the wife of cleopas or Mary's sisters children.
If someone says is this Jesus mother Mary and his father Joseph and his brothers James and Joses, and at the cross a woman was there called Mary the mother of James and Joses then I am only lead to believe they are Mary and Josephs sons.
Mark 15:40 it's Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James and Joses.
It doesn't say Joseph, Mary, and the sons of cleopas.
There is Jesus with his mother Mary and his dad Jospeh and his brothers James and Joses as scripture says. And there was a Mary standing by at the cross and who was the mother of James and Joses and other scripture clarifies Jesus mother was there. It does not say it was the wife of cleopas or Mary's sisters children.
If someone says is this Jesus mother Mary and his father Joseph and his brothers James and Joses, and at the cross a woman was there called Mary the mother of James and Joses then I am only lead to believe they are Mary and Josephs sons.
Mark 15:40 it's Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James and Joses.
Last edited:
Walpole
Member
The Scripture says that Mary Cleophas (not Mary of Nazareth) was the mother of James and Joses. Ergo, brother does not mean uterine sibling in Matthew 13:55.
Matthew’s list of Mary Cleophas’ offspring is clearly abbreviated in Matthew 27:56 (i.e. he confines his list to the two eldest males). It stands to reason that Matthew would abbreviate this list, since we already know who James and Joses are from his longer list in Matthew 13:55.
Again, the root of your problem is conflating the word "brother" with a modern Western usage. You think that ancient Hebrews - i.e. a tribal culture - organized themselves into nuclear 'family units' like we do in the modern West. They didn't. Imposing a modern, Western notion of family (e.g. nuclear family unit) onto an ancient Eastern text makes for an extremely poor hermeneutic, and hopelessly skews the correct interpretation of these passages.
Matthew’s list of Mary Cleophas’ offspring is clearly abbreviated in Matthew 27:56 (i.e. he confines his list to the two eldest males). It stands to reason that Matthew would abbreviate this list, since we already know who James and Joses are from his longer list in Matthew 13:55.
Again, the root of your problem is conflating the word "brother" with a modern Western usage. You think that ancient Hebrews - i.e. a tribal culture - organized themselves into nuclear 'family units' like we do in the modern West. They didn't. Imposing a modern, Western notion of family (e.g. nuclear family unit) onto an ancient Eastern text makes for an extremely poor hermeneutic, and hopelessly skews the correct interpretation of these passages.
Corn Pop
Member
The scripture does not say that Mary Cleopas is the mother of James and Joses. I have no idea how you come up with that. The only Mary mentioned in it is Jesus Mother Mary, his dad Jospeh, and his brothers James and Joses. If you want to expand the word brother to be more open and mean a family relative then so be it, but the scripture clearly does not link some Mary Cleopas to James and Joses.
Matthew 13:55.
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were is disciples . So brothers can be expanded like we call each other brothers , but the Mary at the cross is the Mother of James and Joses and it says Jesus Mother was there and is called Mary. So a Mary at the cross and it's not Magdalene has sons called James and Joses who that is not easy to figure out because there is no clarity.
There is only 3 Mary mentioned by name at cross. Mother Mary, Magdaline, and Cleopas. Magdaline is mentioned with the mother of James and Joses so that rules her out. So there is Jesus mother and Mary Cleopas.
Last edited:
Joses was one of Jesus' brothers. "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” Mark 6:3 It is undoubtedly an Anglicized name, similar to "Jesus". Some translation have it as "Joseph".
Why should I believe you instead of what the Bible says? "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” Mark 6:3
"Now Jesus’ mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not get near him because of the crowd." Luke 8:19
Jesus never said "these aren't my brothers." Ever.
Obviously.
Questionable.
Mark 10: 28Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” 29Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Isaiah 28:5
In that day the Lord of hosts will become a beautiful crown
And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people;
Oh, but let me guess this isn't for His mother, only for you, I mean since you and the such have exclusive rights in being supposed Sola Scripturaist?
2 Timothy 4:8
in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
James 1:12
Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
Revelation 4:4
Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
Isaiah 62:3
You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord,
And a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
Isaiah 62:
1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until her righteousness go forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burneth. 2 And the nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name. 3 Thou shalt also be a crown of beauty in the hand of Jehovah, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. 4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah; for Jehovah delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. 5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
Oh, but let me guess Mary wouldn't be as a royal diadem in the hand of her God? People like you are redundant. Sola Scriptura my foot you're a hypocrite! You care about as much for sola scriptura as an adulterous does her husband.
So, now that it is clear Mary is a queen- hence held as a royal diadem in the hand of her God because she is an Elect Jew, is she the queen of heaven? Like everything else I spell out, this is simple too-
Luke 1:42
Mary Visits Elizabeth
…41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?…
"blessed among women" is from one kins woman to another. However, there is a totality given, that she being the last and final, after all the women architype, concerning the covenant promise is blessed among women=all. In her the promise is fulfilled and therefore, makes her BLESSED AMONG WOMEN. In her the covenant is fulfilled and complete concerning the promise to Abraham whose wife Sarahi (princess) became Sara- Queen and it was God who renamed her a queen. The rest should be simple for those who actually believe in scripture alone guided by the Holy Spirit. Mary is blessed among all her kins women is what Elizabeth is saying, and her being the last to fulfill the ultimate purpose of the covenant, makes her queen above every queen before her. For Christ did say the LAST SHALL BE FIRST. Therefore, this makes her queen of heaven. Are there other queens, of course she is simply Queen of queens as Christ is King of kings. The temple in heaven also has the Woman's Portion of the temple. For the temple on earth was designed according to what was shown from heaven. On earth as it is in heaven. As all were a foreshadow of what was to be concerning Christ the patriarchs were an architype, she, being blessed among women fulfills the foreshadows of her- the matriarch queens. They were an architype of what would be with the New and final covenant which she birthed. If you now say she in not queen of heaven you are simply speaking foolishness and have no real faith in the word of God.
Matthew 15:
Tradition and Worship
…7You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you: 8‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. 9They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ ”…
You don't believe in scripture alone guided by the Holy Spirit, you believe what you have been indoctrinated with from your denomination, which teaches you to NOT honor Mary.
Though no image of any woman can hold a light to her, people love to artistically express their vision and love for her as do they of the King of Glory- Jesus who exulted her to Queen of queens.
Any thought on why the epistle writers - including Peter - never mention her in any of their letters?
Your opinion of what I believe is irrelevant. My source of truth is God's word as expressed in Scripture, not the teachings of fallible men.
BTW, I am non-denominational. Men are fallible, God is infallible. Why not rely on God's word instead of your denominational errors?
Any thought on why you are not aware of what true Christianity is? She's mentioned right at the beginning and in prophecies moving forward. The apostles had her with them just as everyone who is part of the Church should. She gave birth to Christ therefore, Christianity. For all who were to be numbered as saved in Christ were number at His birth. She is the mother of the Church. Bye....
- Status