Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

[Mungo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

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, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Scripture does not say they weren't either and Scripture never indicates that either Mary or Joseph had children by other mates or through adoption.

She did have other children. There is no loss of translation concerning cousin and extended family with the OT, Jacob went to his COUSIN LABAN etc... In the NT it is clear, Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth.
Matthew 13:55-57
The Rejection at Nazareth
…55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own household is a prophet without honor.”…

The Catholic assertion again- that scribes at the time of translation didn't know the correct interpretation from Greek to Latin is absurd.

It' just this simple, obviously the people are not referring to "brethren" but to family. The names mention were not any of the apostles either, because none came from Jesus's home town. They followed him there and witnessed Him being rejected, but they were from other towns. Names like James and Judas were common and almost every Jewish family had a boy named of those names.


The people of His home town know His family, (Know used in its obvious context as to knowledge of.) Further proving the language of scripture is clear. The people of His town would not be speaking of His apostles, for they did not know
them as family (Kin), they accompanied Yeshua there. They were NOT from there. There is historical documentation which shows where each were from. And the thing that will be much to most surprise, is that
neither James the greater nor the Lesser are His brother James mentioned here, as many biblical scholars assert. Here is a historical run down of where the apostles were from.

1. James the Greater son of Zebedee and his brother 2.John
Bethsaida
3. James, the Lesser, son of Alphaeus/Place of birth
Galilee, Israel

Judas Iscariot (LOST his crown)

139:12.1 Judas Iscariot, the twelfth apostle, was chosen by Nathaniel. He was born in Kerioth, a small town
in southern Judea. When he was a lad, his parents moved to Jericho, where he lived and had been employed
in his father's various business enterprises until he became interested in the preaching and work of John the
Baptist. Judas's parents were Sadducees, and when their son joined John's disciples, they disowned him.

He would be replaced by:
Matthias (temporarily) only to be replaced by Saul of Tarsus forever
4. (Paul) From Tarsus .

5. Simon ,Peter :
From Bethsaida

6. Philip :
From Bethsaida.

7. Nathaniel:
From Cana
8. Matthew (Levi):
From Galilee

9. Thomas Didymus:
From Galilee.



10. Judas Alpheus
From Galilee.

11. Simon the zealot:
From Cana..

12. Andrew:
From Bethsaida
Therefore, by the names revealed in Christ’s home town as brothers, we learn the answer. Not one of His apostles was from Nazareth . Nazareth is where Yeshua (Jesus) grew up for most of his childhood and adult life. How can any of the apostles be His brothers by birth when none were from Nazareth? So clearly, the historical belief that the James mentioned in scripture as being James the brother of Christ, is not saying sibling but in that portion of scripture meaning brother as in brethren( united in spirit , not born of Mother Mary's flesh). I say to those who insist that this James mentioned here : Galatians 1:18-19 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the LORD's brother.

Aramaic Bible:
ܠܐܚܪܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܠܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܚܙܝܬ ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܠܝܥܩܘܒ ܐܚܘܗܝ ܕܡܪܢ
19 But, another from The Shlikhe {The Sent Ones}, I saw none, except only Yaqub, {Jacob/James}, the brother of Maran {Our Lord}.

Read it with a pause, the writer is simply emphasizing the already stated position as a 'sent one'-"only James (pause- a nod of respect for position), the Lord's brother".

There is feeling and heart in the written word. I have to be right because where the two James' are from is known. And His brother was not an apostle concerning one of the twelve.
Clearly, brother here is speaking in a spiritual sense for all are brothers in Christ by anointing- it is through Christ that we are called children of God.

Point is both James' were born elsewhere, not in Nazareth.

1. James the Greater son of Zebedee and his brother 2.John
Bethsaida
3. James, the Lesser, son of Alphaeus/Place of birth
Galilee, Israel
Lastly, there is that Greek complication :The word apostle has two meanings: the broader meaning of a messenger and the narrower meaning of an early Christian apostle directly linked to Jesus. The more general meaning of the word is translated into Latin as missiō, and from this word we get missionary. The term only occurs once in the Septuagint.
Keep this in mind when reading scripture to properly understand when the writer says 'apostle' outside of the twelve. For there are only 12 apostles as in narrow meaning directly linked to Christ as 'sent ones' the rest are missio (missionaries) in the broader sense. In Aramaic, (which is the language Jesus spoke) the scriptures from that language are easier to understand.
Example: Acts 14:14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul found out about this, they tore their clothes and rushed into the crowd, shouting,
Aramaic Bible: ܒܪܢܒܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܦܘܠܘܣ ܟܕ ܫܡܥܘ ܣܕܩܘ ܢܚܬܝܗܘܢ ܘܫܘܪܘ ܢܦܩܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܟܠܘܣ ܘܩܥܝܢ ܗܘܘ
14 But, Bar-Naba {Barnabas} and Paulus {Paul}, when they had heard it, they tore their garments, and they leaped up, going out unto the crowd, and were crying out,
Barnabas is not one of the twelve apostles concerning the foundational walls in Rev.21
14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,
not 14 not 15 or more but 12.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Hi Jaybo,

Whilst the Bible does refer to the brothers of Jesus it does not state that they are children of Mary, nor that they had any genetic relationship to Mary.

BTW, which of the six points I raised in posts #2,#3, #4, #7 do you think are wrong?

It is implied that they are her children unless otherwise specifically stated.

 

[Mungo]

betrothed :the person to whom one is engaged

" The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages."

Yeah ok buddy. A contract was signed between the two families a Rabbi would oversee that. That is how it traditionally went. After some time, she would get married. Not complicated. So UNTIL the time of the wedding, a man could not "know" his bride to be. The contract of betrothal is just the agreement of marriage at the appointed time. A girl wasn't ready for marriage until 15 or 16 UNTIL then, the contract is still binding and to break it, by letting another man "know" you, would be a break in that signed and witnessed oath and considered adultery. A promise is a promise after all. That is why Joseph sought to put her away discreetly as to not bring her shame. Quite a nice guy.

The meaning of Betrothed is still betrothed- not married. Hence, " she was betrothed to a man named Joseph" not officially married because yes the wedding and celebration did not occur she was not brought to his home. That is why the angel said " Joseph, be not afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" and Joseph did as the angel said. He did not "know" or rather "knew "her not, until after she brought forth her son. Not complicated.

As I said the doctrine was developed by a 2nd century book.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Christian doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. In Western Christianity, the Catholic Church and Anglican Church adhere to the doctrine, as do some Lutherans, Reformed, and other Protestants. Shenouda III, Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, affirmed the teaching, and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize Mary as Aeiparthenos, meaning "ever-virgin". It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. Most modern Protestants reject the doctrine.

The tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary first appears in a late 2nd century text called the Gospel of James. It was established as orthodoxy at the Council of Ephesus in 431,the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 gave her the title "Aeiparthenos", meaning Perpetual Virgin, and at the Lateran Synod of 649 Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been challenged on the basis that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception .

The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a 2nd-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.

Which Pope is correct?

In 649, Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ. He did so from a book rejected by Pope Innocent I in 405. So, is wasn't UNTIL ( that word again) 649, that this false doctrine was in play as acceptable Dogma. That was after the fact Pope Innocent I said the book it was develop from was to be rejected. Why? because it was written in the 2nd century after the death of Christ and apostles.

This is not complicated. That is why Catholics who try to defend the physical Perpetual Virginity of Mary as it stands, have to jump through hoops and change word meaning and twist scripture. The doctrine is untrue and the most absurd thing against truth is, the refusal of the true meaning of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's actually revealed in the scriptures. As usual though, the dragon stands before the woman to devour her child. Like this false Pope Martin I and his false doctrine. There is some truth to the Perpetual Virginity thing, Satan has to malign a truth to discredit it before men. Just as he too has snatched away the true meaning of Immaculate Conception. He doesn't want an Immaculate Church to be born. Once all this is correctly understood it will be a game changer. He is seeking to prevent the end time church's Assumption into heaven. For all Titles and positions of mother Mary are a 'type' and 'example' of what will be for the end time Church.

Mary was legally married to her when the angel came to her and she conceived Jesus.
That is why Matthew writes in Mt 1:19 "and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."

"The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete. "
The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin

 

[Mungo]

See my previous message. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers, and even names them. Case closed.

The word brother can be used in a very loose sense. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)”. We know from the letter to Philemon that Onesimus was actually a runaway slave, not Paul’s brother (or cousin).
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)…

 

[Mungo]

The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. I believe the Bible, not your interpretation. Case closed.

Scripture doesn't what kind of brothers they were.
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

 

[Mungo]

It is implied that they are her children unless otherwise specifically stated.

No it isn't. That is your invention
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)

 

[Mungo]

Mungo If perpetual virginity was such an important doctrine, it would be stated in the Bible. Never is it so. In fact, Mary's virginity is never mentioned outside of Matthew and Luke.

Where does scripture state that all important doctrines are explicitly stated in scripture?
Answer - it doesn't.
That's just your invention.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Mary was legally married to her when the angel came to her and she conceived Jesus.
That is why Matthew writes in Mt 1:19 "and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."

"The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete. "
The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin

That's nice betrothed is betrothed and Joeseph being told to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife, means he hadn't yet. So no matter what, as you previously stated, it was a two step process. So, not sure what your point is now, except to try and confuse things with all your terminology. Clearly, she is found to be with child before the whole process is complete, which would be to be taken as wife to Joseph's home, not complicated. Not a poor interpretation either, it points to a before and after position. Before the last stage -FOUND to be with child, last stage -Joseph takes her as his wife into his home, Period! You can continue your circus act though.

 

[WIP]

Where does scripture state that all important doctrines are explicitly stated in scripture?
Answer - it doesn't.
That's just your invention.

Do you think that, aside from her role in introducing Jesus to the world, our understanding of Mary's life is really that important? Not trying to downplay her importance but really. This is where I feel the Catholic church devotes way too much emphasis on Mary and in my personal opinion overshadows the importance of Jesus.

I enjoy listening to Catholic broadcasts on Sirius radio and I have asked myself many times who it is that the Catholic church really worships - Jesus or Mary? Even Scripture doesn't speak much of her beyond Jesus' birth. Maybe 2-3 times. The wedding banquet where Jesus converted water to wine, a small number of side notes such as when Jesus was 12 and his parents went back to Jerusalem to find Him, at the cross where she was a witness, and I recall one time in Acts where she was listed among the early Christians.

Even consider this Catholicism subforum which you are the monitor. There is a section heading for discussing the papacy containing 3 discussion threads. There is a section heading discussing the Sacraments with only 1 thread. There is a section heading for discussing Catholic biblical teaching with 4 discussion threads. And then we get to the section heading for discussing Mary and there are 10 discussion threads.

But, there is no section heading for discussing Catholic teaching about Jesus. Looking at the whole of CFnet we don't have a section heading specifically dedicated for discussing and getting to know Jesus either. What does this say about Christianity today? Are our priorities in order? I can't help but wonder.

 

[Mungo]

That's nice betrothed is betrothed and Joeseph being told to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife, means he hadn't yet. So no matter what, as you previously stated, it was a two step process. So, not sure what your point is now, except to try and confuse things with all your terminology. Clearly, she is found to be with child before the whole process is complete, which would be to be taken as wife to Joseph's home, not complicated. Not a poor interpretation either, it points to a before and after position. Before the last stage -FOUND to be with child, last stage -Joseph takes her as his wife into his home, Period! You can continue your circus act though.

betroth
n verb (be betrothed) dated be formally engaged to be married.
n noun (one's betrothed) the person to whom one is engaged.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary).
Mary was not betrothed/engaged. She was legally married.

 

[Mungo]

Do you think that, aside from her role in introducing Jesus to the world, our understanding of Mary's life is really that important? Not trying to downplay her importance but really. This is where I feel the Catholic church devotes way too much emphasis on Mary and in my personal opinion overshadows the importance of Jesus.

I enjoy listening to Catholic broadcasts on Sirius radio and I have asked myself many times who it is that the Catholic church really worships - Jesus or Mary? Even Scripture doesn't speak much of her beyond Jesus' birth. Maybe 2-3 times. The wedding banquet where Jesus converted water to wine, a small number of side notes such as when Jesus was 12 and his parents went back to Jerusalem to find Him, at the cross where she was a witness, and I recall one time in Acts where she was listed among the early Christians.

Even consider this Catholicism subforum which you are the monitor. There is a section heading for discussing the papacy containing 3 discussion threads. There is a section heading discussing the Sacraments with only 1 thread. There is a section heading for discussing Catholic biblical teaching with 4 discussion threads. And then we get to the section heading for discussing Mary and there are 10 discussion threads.

But, there is no section heading for discussing Catholic teaching about Jesus. Looking at the whole of CFnet we don't have a section heading for discussing and getting to know Jesus. What does this say about Christianity today? Are our priorities in order? I can't help but wonder.

I don't think the Catholic Church devotes to much emphasis with Mary.
It's Protestants on these types of forums that get obsessed with Mary.

There are many threads on Mary here because people keep bringing up various Marian topics and I like to separate topics into their own threads. When I post on other topics there is very little interest.

I would welcome anyone starting threads on other topics. It would make a change to Protestants obsession with Catholics and Mary.

 

[God Is My Judge]

betroth
n verb (be betrothed) dated be formally engaged to be married.
n noun (one's betrothed) the person to whom one is engaged.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary).
Mary was not betrothed/engaged. She was legally married.

Two step process as scripture points out. "She was betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David but before they could come together she was found to be with child." This would indicate the second part of the process had not happened yet. She would be pregnant for a few months in order for anyone to realize she was with child. Her saying it right out the gate would not be proof, an enlarged belly would though. So, whatever to all your song and dance .

 

[God Is My Judge]

Mungo it's redundant to continuously deny the obvious.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Not trying to downplay her importance but really. This is where I feel the Catholic church devotes way too much emphasis on Mary and in my personal opinion overshadows the importance of Jesus.

I enjoy listening to Catholic broadcasts on Sirius radio and I have asked myself many times who it is that the Catholic church really worships - Jesus or Mary? Even Scripture doesn't speak much of her beyond Jesus' birth. Maybe 2-3 times.

Precisely. Mary is not even mentioned outside of the gospels and Acts 1:14. Paul never mentions her or discusses her in any way, nor do any of the other epistles.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Precisely. Mary is not even mentioned outside of the gospels and Acts 1:14. Paul never mentions her or discusses her in any way, nor do any of the other epistles.

She is mentioned throughout the OT and that Sign was brought forth with the new covenant- witnessed and penned with the NT. So, don't know what you are talking about.

 

[T. E. Smith]

She is mentioned throughout the OT and that Sign was brought forth with the new covenant- witnessed and penned with the NT. So, don't know what you are talking about.

Say what? Obviously her name is never given, but it's a bold claim to say "throughout" - I'll need specific citations. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

Genesis 3:15 has no reference to Jesus or Mary and is merely speaking of natural enmity between humans and snakes (which is actually a result of evolution, but the biblical authors obviously could not have known that). Isaiah 7:14 is a reference probably to Isaiah's wife (see 8:3), or Ahaz's. As a scholarly commentary says,

Although 7:14 is cited in Mt. 1:23 as a proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus, based on the Greek LXX translation "parthenos" (virgin), the Heb word "'almah" simply means young woman, not virgin.

I would also point out that even if it was rightly translated "virgin", that would only mean that she was a virgin when the prophecy was given - in other words, this son would be her first child. It would not mean that she would remain a virgin even after being impregnated.

 

[jaybo]

The word brother can be used in a very loose sense. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.
Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)”. We know from the letter to Philemon that Onesimus was actually a runaway slave, not Paul’s brother (or cousin).
According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)…

And Scripture can say anything you want it to if you s-t-r-e-t-c-h the meaning to conform to your predetermined "fact". It is clear in Scripture that Jesus had brothers.

You're probably familiar with the term "eisegesis": Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.

Catholics are serious eisegetes but the Bible says what it says: Jesus had true siblings, Mary was not "ever virgin", the church was not founded on Peter, etc.

 

[Mungo]

And Scripture can say anything you want it to if you s-t-r-e-t-c-h the meaning to conform to your predetermined "fact". It is clear in Scripture that Jesus had brothers.

You're probably familiar with the term "eisegesis": Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.

Catholics are serious eisegetes but the Bible says what it says: Jesus had true siblings, Mary was not "ever virgin", the church was not founded on Peter, etc.

The Bible does not say that Jesus had true siblings.

 

[Mungo]

Precisely. Mary is not even mentioned outside of the gospels and Acts 1:14. Paul never mentions her or discusses her in any way, nor do any of the other epistles.

That proves nothing.

BTW Mary is also mentioned in Gal 4:4

 

[jaybo]

The Bible does not say that Jesus had true siblings.

According to your false interpretation. You are twisting Scripture to conform to your predetermined beliefs. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I believe the Bible, period.