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!

  • Are you receiving an "error" mesage when posting?

    Chances are it went through, so check before douible posting.

    We hope to have the situtaion resolved soon, and Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Ever read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Biblical Mary!

I addressed all the arguments posters made attacking the perpetual virginity of Mary. They can be found in this thread...

---> https://christianforums.net/threads/st-mary.78460/page-9


Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.
Hi Walpole

What you state above is true.
But we know that even some Catholic Theologians are not absolutely sure what "brothers" means.
It's much more complicated than just thinking that it means "cousins, or relatives" in the Aramaic language.

I don't like to debate this. How could we be absolutely sure??
Clement of Alexandria (195) believed she was not.
Even some Protestants, however, believe Mary was perpetually a virgin.
Calvin for one!
Wesley comes to mind but I'm not sure.
 
Hi Walpole

What you state above is true.
But we know that even some Catholic Theologians are not absolutely sure what "brothers" means.
It's much more complicated than just thinking that it means "cousins, or relatives" in the Aramaic language.

I don't like to debate this. How could we be absolutely sure??
Clement of Alexandria (195) believed she was not.
Even some Protestants, however, believe Mary was perpetually a virgin.
Calvin for one!
Wesley comes to mind but I'm not sure.
No Catholic theologian should doubt whether Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Scripture is explicit He did. However, Scripture is also explicit that they were not uterine brothers (or sisters), as nowhere in Scripture is Mary of Nazareth stated as a mother to any other. Christ is the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. Once again, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling, which we moderns tend to limit it.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the Second Council of Constantinople. Mary is the Aeirparthenos...

"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema." - The Capitula of the Council, II
 
I addressed all the arguments posters made attacking the perpetual virginity of Mary. They can be found in this thread...

---> https://christianforums.net/threads/st-mary.78460/page-9


Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.
Thanks
The 12 sons of Jacob had 4 mothers
 
Hi Walpole

What you state above is true.
But we know that even some Catholic Theologians are not absolutely sure what "brothers" means.
It's much more complicated than just thinking that it means "cousins, or relatives" in the Aramaic language.

I don't like to debate this. How could we be absolutely sure??
Clement of Alexandria (195) believed she was not.
Even some Protestants, however, believe Mary was perpetually a virgin.
Calvin for one!
Wesley comes to mind but I'm not sure.
Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).
 
No Catholic theologian should doubt whether Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Scripture is explicit He did. However, Scripture is also explicit that they were not uterine brothers (or sisters), as nowhere in Scripture is Mary of Nazareth stated as a mother to any other. Christ is the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. Once again, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling, which we moderns tend to limit it.
By that logic, Jesus is not the son of God. He is the son of Mary. After all, Scripture does not say, "the son of Mary and God". It also shows a lack of understanding of how the definite and indefinite articles in Greek work.

It also conveniently ignores that Scripture EXPLICITLY says in Matthew 1:25 that "Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A SON." Amazing how one can read so much into a TRANSLATED indefinite article and call that "explicit", yet completely ignore an entire verse.



"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema." - The Capitula of the Council, II

And they have any authority...how...? As Acts 19:15 says: God I know. Mary I know. But who are you?
 
Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).
Thanks Bible.
This was very nice of you.
:)
 
By that logic, Jesus is not the son of God. He is the son of Mary. After all, Scripture does not say, "the son of Mary and God". It also shows a lack of understanding of how the definite and indefinite articles in Greek work.

It also conveniently ignores that Scripture EXPLICITLY says in Matthew 1:25 that "Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A SON." Amazing how one can read so much into a TRANSLATED indefinite article and call that "explicit", yet completely ignore an entire verse.





And they have any authority...how...? As Acts 19:15 says: God I know. Mary I know. But who are you?
Which version says Mary?

Acts 19:15
15But one time when they tried it, the evil spirit replied, “I know Jesus, and I know Paul, but who are you?”


Mary is not mentioned.
 
Matt 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Two verses later...

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(Mat 1:25)

Which means Joseph did have intercourse afterwards with Mary.
 
By that logic, Jesus is not the son of God. He is the son of Mary. After all, Scripture does not say, "the son of Mary and God". It also shows a lack of understanding of how the definite and indefinite articles in Greek work.

It also conveniently ignores that Scripture EXPLICITLY says in Matthew 1:25 that "Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A SON." Amazing how one can read so much into a TRANSLATED indefinite article and call that "explicit", yet completely ignore an entire verse.





And they have any authority...how...? As Acts 19:15 says: God I know. Mary I know. But who are you?

Yes, He most certainly is the son of Mary...

Mark 6:3 ---> "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

The incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

As for Matthew 1:25, the Apostle's teaching is only concerned with the events up until the Nativity. His narrative is not implying anything about Joseph's alleged sexual activity after the Nativity. St. Matthew would have written 'until after' if he had wanted to do so, to avoid the obvious ambiguity. Matthew 1:25 is about Jesus' identity as the Messiah, not Joseph's sex life.


P.S. Can anyone tell me how to break up quotes to reply to different sections? I am not sure how to reply to different sections of your post as you did to mine.

Thanks!
 
No Catholic theologian should doubt whether Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Scripture is explicit He did. However, Scripture is also explicit that they were not uterine brothers (or sisters), as nowhere in Scripture is Mary of Nazareth stated as a mother to any other. Christ is the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. Once again, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling, which we moderns tend to limit it.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the Second Council of Constantinople. Mary is the Aeirparthenos...

"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema." - The Capitula of the Council, II
I know Walpole.
I know it's a dogma.
Too many anathemas....this is why I had to leave.
I guess I'm obstinate....I'm really sorry that I am.
 
Two verses later...

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(Mat 1:25)

Which means Joseph did have intercourse afterwards with Mary.
Where does Matthew say Joseph had intercourse with Mary?

Verse please.
 
Yes, He most certainly is the son of Mary...

Mark 6:3 ---> "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Walpole....
Go to the end of the sentence to which you wish to reply....
Hit the enter key...
And you'll get what you see here...just start typing your reply.
The incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

As for Matthew 1:25, the Apostle's teaching is only concerned with the events up until the Nativity. His narrative is not implying anything about Joseph's alleged sexual activity after the Nativity. St. Matthew would have written 'until after' if he had wanted to do so, to avoid the obvious ambiguity. Matthew 1:25 is about Jesus' identity as the Messiah, not Joseph's sex life.


P.S. Can anyone tell me how to break up quotes to reply to different sections? I am not sure how to reply to different sections of your post as you did to mine.

Thanks!
At the end,,,,
go to the last word...in this case Thanks!
and repeat the procedure.
hit the enter key...
start typing.

This is a really cool and necessary feature....
 
Where does Matthew say Joseph had intercourse with Mary?

Verse please.
If you couple Mt 1:25 with...

Matthew 13:55 (KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

it's pretty undeniable.
 
I know Walpole.
I know it's a dogma.
Too many anathemas....this is why I had to leave.
I guess I'm obstinate....I'm really sorry that I am.
My point was to demonstrate is a disingenuous argument to state Catholic theology leaves room to debate the perpetual virginity of Mary.
 
If you couple Mt 1:25 with...

Matthew 13:55 (KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

it's pretty undeniable.
I have addressed this already. Those men are listed as the sons of another Mary (Mary the wife of Cleophas)

I addressed that in previous threads.

Here ---> https://christianforums.net/threads/mother-of-our-salvation.87054/post-1628144

Here ---> https://christianforums.net/threads/st-mary.78460/page-9
 
My point was to demonstrate is a disingenuous argument to state Catholic theology leaves room to debate the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Has an agreement been reached?
I don't see how since Mathew 1:25 clearly states UNTIL.
You can explain the word UNTIL however you may want to....
But every translation I looked up states in a nice way that Joseph did not go near Mary
till her first born son. I even checked the Italian bible which helps me many times.
Did Mary have to be chaste in order to be innocent and holy (set apart).
 
Deny glory to Christ, all the reverence, honor and devotion we give to Mary

No “we” don’t give “devotion” to Mary.


Catholics who follow the Pope may give “devotion to Mary.

Christians, followers of Jesus Christ do not.


Mary is dead. We do not commune with the dead, to pray to, to worship or speak to, or give devotion to, the dead.


That’s Necromancy.

That’s idolatry.





JLB
 
Has an agreement been reached?
I don't see how since Mathew 1:25 clearly states UNTIL.
You can explain the word UNTIL however you may want to....
But every translation I looked up states in a nice way that Joseph did not go near Mary
till her first born son. I even checked the Italian bible which helps me many times.
Did Mary have to be chaste in order to be innocent and holy (set apart).
Yes, it's dogma and was declared so early on so there is not "agreement" to be reached or compromised.

Also, there is an old axiom that states, “lex orandi, lex credendi.” The Church's earliest liturgies all address Mary as ever virgin...

- Liturgy of St. James
- Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
- Liturgy of St. Cyril
- Liturgy of St. Basil
- Roman Canon


These are all still in use today as well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top