Sarassin:


In the same vein you cannot demonstrate that Mary did not in fact give birth to other children apart from Jesus.

Sir, stop making assumptions about what I can and cannot do

But Matthew 1:25 indicates that Joseph had intimate relations with his wife Mary after the birth of Jesus, therefore the issue of Mary being a perpetual virgin living in lonely orgasmic splendour is spurious at best and misleading at worst. On a balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that Mary, as would have been expected of her, particularly amidst claims of a prior immaculate conception would have borne other children too.

Mathew 1:25 is also another passage that has been miss understood. I will give examples.
1 Timothy 4:13, Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?
1corinthians 15:25, For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet
Does this mean Christ reign will end afterwards?
Acts 25:21, But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar.
Does this mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). So sir the use of the word until does not mean anything on the contrary happened afterwards. Your passage in Mathew does not indicate what you would like it to indicate.

The bible in quite a few cases does make distinctions for familial clarification, for instance Genesis 37:2 is a clear reference to Joseph and his half-brothers distinguished by the mention of the names of of Jacob's other wives. There is not the merest of hints that Joseph, father of Jesus had another wife or children prior to the birth of Jesus.

I am not saying for certain that the brothers are Jesus half brother, they could very well be his cousin or some other relatives but certainly not blood brother.

Also you seem to hang your gripe on the use of the word “brother” would you then say that the "Zebedee Brothers" were not full blood siblings because the term "brother" has had other usage? generalisations do not always apply in every instance.

Am not hung on any word. It's your likes who seem to be though. Rolling out these passages each time this issue comes up while forgetting it's other usage. As regards the sons of Zebedee, do you have any other reason to believe otherwise? Mathew 20:20 specifically talks of the mother of the Zebedee brothes to be one woman. No were in the Bible refers to the mother of Jesus brothers as Mary. The Catholic Church does have reasons to believe otherwise as regards the brothers of Jesus . It maintains that it has traditionally taught the perpetual virginity of Mary and even the early reformers also held this believe. The Bible which you are misquoting is only a part of it's tradition. You cannot claim the Bible says anything other than what the church has traditionally taught. Also In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense for Mary who was already espoused. Even a lady who is yet to be espoused would be expected to very easily assume she would find a man who would impregnate her. Unless she had already taken a vow of virginity. Another thing of great significance is the handing over of Mary to John by Jesus in John 19:26 when by the Jewish law says the responsibility to care for Mary should fall to the eldest siblings alive. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

The implications of Mary being a perpetual virgin, meaning that Joseph died without a blood child is of huge significance largely ignored by Catholics. This is just a clear case of Catholics reverse-engineering biblical events to fit ill-conceived dogma.

Please, the perpetual virginity of Mary does not in any way imply that Joseph died without a blood child. And what is the significance sef if I may ask?

Elohim1:
MARY NO CARRY BELLE WHEN SHE DAY HER PAPA HOUSE NA WHEN SHE CUN DAY LIVE WITH JOSEF NA IN SHE CUN CARRY BELLE HMM TOO BAD THE HOLY SPIRIT RAPED HER WITHOUT HER PERMISION SHA NO BE NEW THING OTHER GODS TO DO IT TO ZEUS DID IT KRISH DID IT ONLY THAT KRISH ASKED 4 PERMISION FIRST AND THE WOMAN ALLOWED HIM

Read your Bible well jor, the angel of the lord rightly informed Mary of God's plan for her and her famous response was "I am the hand maid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word."

Geist:
Sir, stop making assumptions about what I can and cannot do

It is not an assumption.

Mathew 1:25 is also another passage that has been miss understood. I will give examples.
1 Timothy 4:13, Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?............

There is no misunderstanding, the intention of the passage is very clear. According to Matt 1:25 Joseph and Mary, husband and wife, in case you forgot, did what comes naturally after she had borne Jesus. You see two can play that game, I can drag up any number of cherry-picked verses in the bible to make a homonymous argument, it is rather pointless. The verses you referred to are just a red herring and have no bearing on the subject.

I am not saying for certain that the brothers are Jesus half brother, they could very well be his cousin or some other relatives but certainly not blood brother.

There is not a shred of evidence that they were cousins or other relatives. Indeed we are told that Mary and Elisheba mother of John the Baptist were related as cousins. Why do you think the NT would not specify if Judah, James et al were anything but full blood siblings?

It maintains that it has traditionally taught the perpetual virginity of Mary and even the early reformers also held this believe. The Bible which you are misquoting is only a part of it's tradition. You cannot claim the Bible says anything other than what the church has traditionally taught. Also In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense for Mary who was already espoused. Even a lady who is yet to be espoused would be expected to very easily assume she would find a man who would impregnate her. Unless she had already taken a vow of virginity.

Why is it so important to the Catholic Church that Mary remains a perpetual virgin? So much so that successive versions of the NT have written out Joseph and subtly removed all references to Jesus as being the son of Joseph? That is the real question.

The Church can teach a doctrine for millennieu, teaching it in itself is not a validation of the doctrine it is simply the Church’s own opinion. You say the Bible is only a part of the Catholic tradition, I say without the bible, Catholic tradition is rather meaningless and perspective is required. Catholic tradition is not the final arbiter of Jewish and Palestinian norms and customs.

You say Mary had taken a vow of virginity, I say that is an outlandish claim. More likely her betrothal to Joseph was at such a young age she was still a virgin at the time, as would have been expected.

Another thing of great significance is the handing over of Mary to John by Jesus in John 19:26 when by the Jewish law says the responsibility to care for Mary should fall to the eldest siblings alive. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

This just goes to show the absurdity of that verse. You have just stated that James, Judah et al could have been cousins or other extended relations, in other words, even if according to you, they were not blood brothers, still according to the bible, even in the most uncharitable interpretation you can provide, they would still count as family members and as such Jesus would have handed Mary over to one of his family members in order to comply with the law, don’t you think?

Please, the perpetual virginity of Mary does not in any way imply that Joseph died without a blood child. And what is the significance sef if I may ask?

The question is perverse.

She still remains the Queen of heaven

hunter21:
She still remains the Queen of heaven

Nope, that of course was Astarte.

Sarassin:

It is not an assumption.


There is no misunderstanding, the intention of the passage is very clear. According to Matt 1:25 Joseph and Mary, husband and wife, in case you forgot, did what comes naturally after she had borne Jesus. You see two can play that game, I can drag up any number of cherry-picked verses in the bible to make a homonymous argument, it is rather pointless. The verses you referred to are just a red herring and have no bearing on the subject.

I want to believe you are much more intelligent that this and only trying to be tactfully disingenuous. I agree the passage was very clear, it is only your understanding that does not follow suit. The bolded is an example of your dis-ingenuity. Why have you tactfully stated that what should come naturally after marriage is what came after the birth of Jesus? Was Jesus born before Joseph and Mary were Man and wife? What prevented Joseph from consumating the marriage before the birth of Jesus? Maybe you already know that Mary and Joseph's union was quite different from what was obtainable naturally. The verses I referred to are red herring? Please stop making claims. Do well to prove them.

There is not a shred of evidence that they were cousins or other relatives. Indeed we are told that Mary and Elisheba mother of John the Baptist were related as cousins. Why do you think the NT would not specify if Judah, James et al were anything but full blood siblings?

Deductive reasoning bro. I have showed you reasons why the said brothers could not possibly be blood siblings.

Why is it so important to the Catholic Church that Mary remains a perpetual virgin? So much so that successive versions of the NT have written out Joseph and subtly removed all references to Jesus as being the son of Joseph? That is the real question.

The Church can teach a doctrine for millennieu, teaching it in itself is not a validation of the doctrine it is simply the Church’s own opinion. You say the Bible is only a part of the Catholic tradition, I say without the bible, Catholic tradition is rather meaningless and perspective is required. Catholic tradition is not the final arbiter of Jewish and Palestinian norms and customs.

What are you ranting about here now. It is no longer Mary's perpetual virginity that is the problem but who the father of Jesus is. The bible was quite clear on the issue and even you seemed to claim that it was only after the birth Jesus that Joseph had sex with Mary. Joseph was clearly a foster father. And nowhere have I claimed the Catholic church is the final arbiter of Jewish and Palestinian norms and customs, I will only take that as one of your many irrational responses to my posts.

You say Mary had taken a vow of virginity, I say that is an outlandish claim. More likely her betrothal to Joseph was at such a young age she was still a virgin at the time, as would have been expected.

This again in no way explains why Mary who was already betrothed would ask how she was to conceive Jesus. If according to you she is expected to naturally have sex with her husband, why would she ask such question?

This just goes to show the absurdity of that verse. You have just stated that James, Judah et al could have been cousins or other extended relations, in other words, even if according to you, they were not blood brothers, still according to the bible, even in the most uncharitable interpretation you can provide, they would still count as family members and as such Jesus would have handed Mary over to one of his family members in order to comply with the law, don’t you think?

This just shows you don't know much about jewish rites and customs.
[If], while a woman is still living in her father's house, her husband died and she has sons [she shall live where she chooses in] a house of theirs. [If] she has no [son, her father-in-law shall marry her to the son] of his choice… or if he wishes, he may give her in marriage to her father-in-law. If her husband and her father-in-law are both dead and she has no son [only then] has she the status of a woman without male support (almattu); she may go wherever she pleases (par. 33; in: Pritchard, Texts, 182).https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_20884.html
Nowhere mentions any distant relatives or cousins who the widow should be handed to.

Geist:
What are you ranting about here now............

Well sir, I am really sorry you consider my views a "rant". I believe I have made my points, we agree to disagree, thanks for your time.

Sarassin:


Well sir, I am really sorry you consider my views a "rant". I believe I have made my points, we agree to disagree, thanks for your time.

very well sir

simplex2:




Matt 13:55 talked about his brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas
vs 56 talked about his sisters.

Mark 6:3 Maintained the same names, except Judas which was turned to Juda, also talked about his numerous sisters.

Luke 8:19

Matt 12:46

Mark 3:31

...Should I continue or are you just playing dumb?

Kindly read Matt 27:56 and John19:25 to know who the mother of those named is. If you still need some other passages to clear your doubt, tell me.

Geist:
Read your Bible well jor, the angel of the lord rightly informed Mary of God's plan for her and her famous response was "I am the hand maid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word."

STOP LYING FOR JESUS

JMAN05:


You ve not shown me the scripture that calls her the ark of God. If this is what you reached cos you view him God's baby mama, then that is your word, not God's.

how would you describe the various parallels that one can find between mary and d old ark, d old ark contained stone tablets of d law, mary carried the very word of God, the law giver, the fulfilment and end of the law, d ark was overshadowed by the presence of God so was mary....etc

I still wonder how you came about the baby mama. Jesus has been existing in heaven before coming to earth. In heaven he has been God's son. God never impregnated anybody to give birth to Jesus. I tot you call Jesus ur God, was ur your God given birth to? meaning he has a beginning? If you agree that the birth is here on earth, you will agree that Jesus had been God's son in heaven even before coming to earth. Who now gave birth to him in heaven?

It is Joseph who could say Mary is the mother of my baby ie the foster father of Jesus. God had for long had him as a son in heaven.

The baby mama is simple logic. The Word existed in heaven from the begining but he wasnt a human being he was spirit! For him to be fully human he had to be born and take flesh. A woman gave birth to him on earth after 9 months. God who is in heaven cccame as man stayed 9 months inside a woman and was born that woman gave birth to God thru the power of God that overshadowed her.that is both mother of GOD and God babyy mama.

2. Jeremiah 3:14[ASV] says Jehovah is the husband of Israel. KJV says that God is married unto them. Did this prevent them from marrying? Remember that Israel is a dedicated nation to God. A holy nation.

The spiritual Israelites, the true Christians are Jesus' bride. 2cor 11:2. does this mean they wont marry?

Of course if you pollute yourself with idols, that is wrong as 2Cor. 6:16 says, but in the previous letter to this same congregation, Paul exhorted some who wish to; to marry. 1cor 7:36. He says that that is not a sin. It is never defiling to marry. In fact in verse 3 of that chapter 7, Paul stated that couples should give the marital due. Do you think this would defile there marriage to christ when they do it?

True Christians are a holy nation (1pet 2:9), yet they marry. Do not view something as defiled when God never did so. God never viewed marital sex as a defiling practice. It will be wrong to view Joseph as defiling Mary's holiness by sleeping with her. After all, both Mary and Joseph are among the holy people of Israel. A nation whose law never banned sex for married couples. Sex for them was not a defilement.

Joseph wouldnt be unrighteous if he slept with his wife.

your analogyy doesnt work did isreal concieve a human who is GOD? Do u know any christian who conceived and bore God? There is just one mary, she alone did GOd set apart to bear Jesus, and Joseph a jew was informed of this, do you think a jew will be so stupid as to use something dedicated to God for his gratificattion?

dolphinheart:


the scriptures says jesus did not know Mary until she gave birth to jesus, after that , it would be expected of JosEph to fufill his husbandLy dues. He has the backing of gods law guiding marriage, of gods law guiding pro- creation, of the Mosaic Law and the teachings of the apostles, he had broken no law if he sleeps with HIS WIFE!

'it would be expected' that is an assumption.

Sarassin:


In the same vein you cannot demonstrate that Mary did not in fact give birth to other children apart from Jesus. But Matthew 1:25 indicates that Joseph had intimate relations with his wife Mary after the birth of Jesus, therefore the issue of Mary being a perpetual virgin living in lonely orgasmic splendour is spurious at best and misleading at worst. On a balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that Mary, as would have been expected of her, particularly amidst claims of a prior immaculate conception would have borne other children too.

The bible in quite a few cases does make distinctions for familial clarification, for instance Genesis 37:2 is a clear reference to Joseph and his half-brothers distinguished by the mention of the names of of Jacob's other wives. There is not the merest of hints that Joseph, father of Jesus had another wife or children prior to the birth of Jesus. Also you seem to hang your gripe on the use of the word “brother” would you then say that the "Zebedee Brothers" were not full blood siblings because the term "brother" has had other usage? generalisations do not always apply in every instance.

The implications of Mary being a perpetual virgin, meaning that Joseph died without a blood child is of huge significance largely ignored by Catholics. This is just a clear case of Catholics reverse-engineering biblical events to fit ill-conceived dogma.

actually mathew doesnt indicate anything of the sort.

Sarassin:


No sir, no dodging here, Paul is very clear in Gal 1:18-19 "........I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord's brother"
Paul's statement is clear, concise and not open to misinterpretation.

what is the word used for brother and what is the range of its meaning in greek?

simplex2:


Or it shows I'd rather watch paint dry than engage you in your crappy-bible twisting charade.

so this is ur classic wway of saying u cant rebut me.

Wweldone thank u.

Firstly I want say that Mary was not ark of convenant it was Jesus. If it were to be mary she wouldnt hv to be at the upper with others for Holy Ghost.
Heb 10:5,deutonony 18:18.
God prepared that body inside the womb of mary. The carrier of God is the Jesus,that is why He has to give up that body for us to be allowed to recieve Gods spirit.
"Except a wheat fall down and die it remaineth a single seed"
Devil is just planning evil with end time mary and people dont know.
Mary mother of Christ can never claim any of what the poster post because she has Holy Ghost and know God who created her.
She humbled herself before God. Anybody who recieve Holy Ghost has conceived Jesus waiting to redemption to deliver him.

Jews fulfiled natural while we(gentiles) are fullfilling the spiritual until gospel goes back again to Isreal since many didnt believe that Jesus was the messiah.

That is why Jesus didnt marry such to give birth to spiritual children.
So calling mary mother of God is a name taken far beyond please not mother of Christ. Since devil wants equality with God,now its not only equality but he was the one that gave birth to God. You can see the level of deciet there.
God bless you.

Ubenedictus:
'it would be expected' that is an assumption.

an expectation that was supported with facts that it really happened, Mary could not have had other children without having sex with her husband , or could she?

I wonder why you guys are Tryin all this illogical assumptions just to elevate Mary above who she is, the scriptures is awash with the role women played in Gods organization, and I've not seen a divinely approved authority driven position given to women. even before Jesus was born, all divine revelations as to jesus welfare was passed through Joseph, like a good isrealites wife, she obeyed.

even Mary that you are painting to be squicky clean remaimed unclean for 40 days after birth. has God ever dwelled in places he considered unclean?

Ubenedictus:
actually mathew doesnt indicate anything of the sort.

This your argument is far too esoteric for me. In the first instance I don't believe in an immaculate conception, I believe it is pious fraud. I accept that others believe it. For me the doctrine of "perpetual virginity" of Mary on whimsical notions stretches the boundaries of credulity.

Sarassin:


This your argument is far too esoteric for me. In the first instance I don't believe in an immaculate conception, I believe it is pious fraud. I accept that others believe it. For me the doctrine of "perpetual virginity" of Mary on whimsical notions stretches the boundaries of credulity.

how so?

Do you know a pius jew is forbidden from having relations from his wife who has a child that isnt his?? Actually it is more credible to believe marys perpetual virginity than the offspring story. It beccomes more interesting when no bible passage clearly support the offspring idea and the early church absolutely rejected it as an innovation d moment it was first propounded.

dolphinheart:

an expectation that was supported with facts that it really happened, Mary could not have had other children without having sex with her husband , or could she?

nowhere does tthe bible say mary had other children

I wonder why you guys are Tryin all this illogical assumptions just to elevate Mary above who she is, the scriptures is awash with the role women played in Gods organization, and I've not seen a divinely approved authority driven position given to women. even before Jesus was born, all divine revelations as to jesus welfare was passed through Joseph, like a good isrealites wife, she obeyed.

this is a classic protestant rant that doesnt address the topic, i will sssteer clear of themm hroughout d discussion

even Mary that you are painting to be squicky clean remaimed unclean for 40 days after birth. has God ever dwelled in places he considered unclean?

that is ceremonial uncleaniness not sin..
Moses said anyone that touch blood is unclean, a woman on menses wwas unclean to moses, a woman giving birth was also ceremonially unclean, do you consider such d case today? Do u think the birth o christ is an unclean even?

luckyCO:
Firstly I want say that Mary was not ark of convenant it was Jesus. If it were to be mary she wouldnt hv to be at the upper with others for Holy Ghost.
Heb 10:5,deutonony 18:18.
God prepared that body inside the womb of mary. The carrier of God is the Jesus,that is why He has to give up that body for us to be allowed to recieve Gods spirit.
"Except a wheat fall down and die it remaineth a single seed"
Devil is just planning evil with end time mary and people dont know.

Jesus is God not a carrier of God. The ark contained d rod of aaron d high priest, manna, and d commandment, Jesus is the new high priest, the new bread from heaven and the wword of God and maryy carried him

Mary mother of Christ can never claim any of what the poster post because she has Holy Ghost and know God who created her.
She humbled herself before God. Anybody who recieve Holy Ghost has conceived Jesus waiting to redemption to deliver him.

Jews fulfiled natural while we(gentiles) are fullfilling the spiritual until gospel goes back again to Isreal since many didnt believe that Jesus was the messiah.

That is why Jesus didnt marry such to give birth to spiritual children.
So calling mary mother of God is a name taken far beyond please not mother of Christ. Since devil wants equality with God,now its not only equality but he was the one that gave birth to God. You can see the level of deciet there.
God bless you.

another rant, i am steering cclear.

otipoju:


Okay.. what is the greek word and its meaning ?
Let me listen to your theory.

In the New American Bible's English translation of
the Gospel of St. Mark we do indeed read about thecrowd asking, "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren't His sisters our neighbors here?" (Mk
6:3) A similar reference occurs earlier in Mk 3:31 —"His mother and brothers arrived...." The problem emerges in understanding the
meaning of the word brother. In the original text of the Gospel, we find the Greek word <adelphos,> meaning brother, used. However, <adelphos> does
not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, <adelphos> was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a halfbrother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc. For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word <adelphos> was used to describe the relationship
between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an <adelphos> to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American
translation, "kinsman" or "relative" will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.)
The same is true for the word sister. Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and
Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word <adelphos> was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek <adelphos> to signify all of these relations. Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these
relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20). The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38).
Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God's plan, she responded, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do
not give us many details of His childhood, no
mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the "sons of Mary" or "a son of Mary," but only the son of Mary. This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother." According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

Sarassin:


No sir, no dodging here, Paul is very clear in Gal 1:18-19 "........I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord's brother"
Paul's statement is clear, concise and not open to misinterpretation.

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



Notice, the James of whom St. Paul speaks was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are only two apostles named James among the twelve. The first James is revealed to have been a son of Zebedee. He would most likely not be the
James St. Paul speaks of in Galatians, because this James, the brother of John, was martyred early on, according to Acts 12:1-2. And even if it were him, his father was Zebedee. If he were the blood brother of the Lord, his father would have been Joseph. The second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16, is most likely to whom St. Paul refers, and his father was Alphaeus, not Joseph.
Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not blood brothers.

Ubenedictus:
how would you describe the various parallels that one can find between mary and d old ark, d old ark contained stone tablets of d law, mary carried the very word of God, the law giver, the fulfilment and end of the law, d ark was overshadowed by the presence of God so was mary....etc

Also damning is Elizabet's reactions to Mary's visitation. Seems to me like she borrowed a leaf from David's reactions to the ark of the old covenant in 2samuel 6:9 and she did this under the influence of the Holy Spirit

Ubenedictus:
actually mathew doesnt indicate anything of the sort.

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

Do you know a pius jew is forbidden from having relations from his wife who has a child that isnt his?? Actually it is more credible to believe marys perpetual virginity than the offspring story. It beccomes more interesting when no bible passage clearly support the offspring idea and the early church absolutely rejected it as an innovation d moment it was first propounded.

Quite simply I don’t agree with any of this. Matthew 13:55 amongst others, demonstrates clearly that Mary was not a perpetual virgin because Jesus had brothers. What is more, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that these were merely Joseph's children from a prior or later marriage.

I do not accept your claim that the Greek word for “brother” is not specific enough and could mean “cousin.” or other relatives, in these instances the Greek word adelphos can only mean brother. Your claim is predicated on the fact that in Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin,” so the word for “brother” was used instead.

But Greek does indeed have a word for "cousin," anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, and evidently knew the word for "cousin", did not apply it to James, the Lord's "brother", in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they definitely had a word for "cousin" at their disposal. They didn't use it because it would have been inaccurate, these were Jesus' real brothers.

But let’s assume that the word “cousin” had not been available to them, would they have used the word “brother” instead? not likely. OT writers did not fail to differentiate between brothers and relatives who were not brothers. For instance, Ezekiel 11:15 starts off with, "Son of man, your brothers, your relatives, your fellow exiles and the whole house of Israel..." In this verse a "relative" is distinguished from a "brother.”

The fact that Mary indulged in sex with her husband after Jesus was born does not in any way diminish from who she was, similarly the rush to deny Jesus any form of earthly comfort i.e familial sibling relationships is simply not right, he was afterall a first century Palestinian Jew!

Ubenedictus:
In the New American Bible's English translation of
the Gospel of St. Mark we do indeed read about thecrowd asking, "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren't His sisters our neighbors here?" (Mk
6:3) A similar reference occurs earlier in Mk 3:31 —"His mother and brothers arrived...." The problem emerges in understanding the
meaning of the word brother. In the original text of the Gospel, we find the Greek word <adelphos,> meaning brother, used. However, <adelphos> does
not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, <adelphos> was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a halfbrother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc. For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word <adelphos> was used to describe the relationship
between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an <adelphos> to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American
translation, "kinsman" or "relative" will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.)
The same is true for the word sister. Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and
Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word <adelphos> was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek <adelphos> to signify all of these relations. Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these
relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20). The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38).
Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God's plan, she responded, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do
not give us many details of His childhood, no
mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the "sons of Mary" or "a son of Mary," but only the son of Mary. This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother." According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

No one is contesting that Mary was a virgin when she was betrothed to Joseph. The idea that you are trying to postulate is that throughout her lifetime, she never slept with any man. Sadly your evidences are not solid nor convincing enough to back your claim. If God did not want Joseph to sleep with mary at all, he would clearly have said so. And the bible records that he did not until after she had gave birth .


It was never contested in the bible that lot was Abraham's relative and not brother.

It was clearly stated that Joseph brothers were half brothers.

It was clearly stated that John was Jesus's cousin and so if Jesus's brothers were half brothers, it would not be hidden.

Jesus's siblings were not part of his disciples and its thrrefore understandable that they were not present at the cross even when all the disciples had deserted him except John.

Mary's virginity before and after marriage has been argued for so long in history by believers and non-believers. But when it comes to the subject of virginity, science has shown there's more to it than you think. You should read here to find out more:

http://www.pharmacistreny.com/2016/03/is-she-virgin-im-worried-cos-she-did.html

Ubenedictus:
nowhere does tthe bible say mary had other children

dnt jump the gun sir, neither did I say so . But the scriptures told us jesus had brothers, these brothers of jesus where mostimes it's mentioned, with Mary!, these are facts, abi no be so

this is a classic protestant rant that doesnt address the topic, i will sssteer clear of themm hroughout d discussion

yes you are right , it does not address the topic, but it surely helps one to understand why you hold on to the veneration of Mary and put her in a position that does not have any divine organizational surpport. you gave her a crown God does not like or approve of, and you had to alter God's organizational arrangement to achieve this!

that is ceremonial uncleaniness not sin..
Moses said anyone that touch blood is unclean, a woman on menses wwas unclean to moses, a woman giving birth was also ceremonially unclean, do you consider such d case today? Do u think the birth o christ is an unclean even?

did I say it was sin? no
but did Mary remain unclean for 40 days after jesus birth ? yes

you asked if we consider such the case today, the answer is no, but Mary is not from today, and she did not give birth to jesus today, she gave birth to jesus when the law of Moses was still active!

I also Do not think the birth of christ was an unclean event, but according to the law, Mary was unclean when she gave birth to jesus, was she not? and she remaimed unclean for 40 days, was she not?

Ubenedictus:
how would you describe the various parallels that one can find between mary and d old ark, d old ark contained stone tablets of d law, mary carried the very word of God, the law giver, the fulfilment and end of the law, d ark was overshadowed by the presence of God so was mary....etc

You see people run into problem in trying to establish antitype. The bible never identified mary as the ark of God. You said he carried the law giver, while the ark carried the law. Even if you say she carried the law and law giver, the ark only carried the tablet containing the ten commandment alone NOT the law giver. Joseph had access to mary, while the ark has to be approached by a high priest who undergo a ceremonial cleansing. Joseph should not have been qualified to marry her.

If you have no scripture where she is called ark of God or where she was identified as a prophetic antitype, the discussion should be over cos I wont be discussing what does not exist.

Unlike Mary, Sarah was identified as the Jerusalem above, which is the wife of God. We read:

Gal. 4:26 "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother". In other words, Sarah is even the one identified by the bible as the anti-typical wife of God. read verse 22 also. verse 31 says "So, brothers, we are children, not of a servant girl, but of the free woman".

That is what the scripture says. Mary was never shown as an antitype of the Ark. Even if she was the ark (tho she is not), Joseph did no wrong by sleeping with her, after all, Abraham slept with antitypical wife of God.

The baby mama is simple logic. The Word existed in heaven from the begining but he wasnt a human being he was spirit! For him to be fully human he had to be born and take flesh. A woman gave birth to him on earth after 9 months. God who is in heaven cccame as man stayed 9 months inside a woman and was born that woman gave birth to God thru the power of God that overshadowed her.that is both mother of GOD and God babyy mama.

I asked, since he was already existing in heaven as the son of God, what sense is there to emphasize what mary did. As if mary brought him to life. Remember that Joseph is his fleshly father as mary is his fleshly mother. Joseph should also be the father of God, and also the husband of ur God's mother. Joseph is even in a better position to call her my baby mama. He has already been God's son in heaven. Dont you think so?

your analogyy doesnt work did isreal concieve a human who is GOD? Do u know any christian who conceived and bore God? There is just one mary, she alone did GOd set apart to bear Jesus, and Joseph a jew was informed of this, do you think a jew will be so stupid as to use something dedicated to God for his gratificattion?

Dont you think you are making emphasis on something God himself did not emphasize? Is it not better to know God's view thru His word? Israelites were God's dedicated holy nation. make no mistake about it. But God allowed them to marry. meaning that what is dedicated to God does not mean that marriage or sex defiles them. That is God's view. It is good not be over righteous than God. God sets standard of what is right and wrong, not we. God had not stated that when any who is dedicated to him sleeps with a man, she condemned. Jesus still calls his bride virgin even though they do get married. Dont establish your own standard.

Like I said, both Joseph and Mary were all in a dedicated nation of Israel, mary alone was not the dedicated one. (and am yet to see where the scripture said she was specially dedicated to God. Show me if there is or is it another of ur standard?)

2. You are now emphasizing the theory that she gave birth to a God, that that is the main thing. However, your op is holding on to the belief that Mary is the wife of God. And that having relation with her is a big error (no bible proof). You even went further to draw an analogy with David and his wife. That any who went to take his wife and sleep with her, is as if he wants to usurp the authority of the king (I want to add that David would never even give his wife to another man for marriage). That is the point under discussion. So dont shift it.

In that vein, is it taking his sovereignty when ur God's wife was married by another person, Joseph? The marriage itself is a big factor cos king david would not allow someone else to even marry his wife, because he knows that marriage will afford them sex. Never! In fact God himself by His standard will view it as adultery. But did He view that of Joseph as such? Isnt God's standard better than our's? (ie assuming Mary was called God's wife).

And I have shown that according to God's standard (as oppose to urs), those He marries are not exonerated from marriage and sex. Thats God's view.

In summary:

- God never ban his 'wives' from being married and having sex. eg the Israelites and the bride of Christ married and had relations. Although Mary is never identified as God's wife.

- That one is the temple of God does not mean he cant get married and have relations eg True Christian saints are bride of Christ but they marry. compare Matt 23:16-21

- That one is an antitype of something dear to God does not mean she cannot marry. eg Sarah was an antitype of God's woman, but she married and had relations. Although the bible never identified Mary as an antitype of the Ark.

Ubenedictus:
nowhere does tthe bible say mary had other children

We read:

But he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus matt 1:25

Ubeni why do you think that this scripture didnt mean that Joseph later had relations with Mary?

JMAN05:


We read:

But he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus matt 1:25

Ubeni why do you think that this scripture didnt mean that Joseph later had relations with Mary?

that is becos u are reading the bible with a modern twist instead of reading it according to it ancient text. In the Bible, the word 'untill' means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the
modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? d use of until doesnt prove anything.
Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible) and knox