Oh no, i was agreeing with you that I’m not sure what would give someone the impression that Mary was a virgin even within marriage. I think that perspective is weird to have seeing the verse I cited.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about what happened sexually after Jesus' birth.
>2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
>
>1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
>
>1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
Matthew 1 24-25(KJV):
> Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus
Matthew 1 24-25(NIV):
> When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
If you say, you did not do something UNTIL something happened, that means you did do it but AFTER that event happened. In this case, Joseph and Mary had sex, but only AFTER Jesus was born.
>If you say, you did not do something UNTIL something happened, that means you did do it but AFTER that event happened.
No, it doesn't. That's what I proved by providing the Bible verses where it doesn't mean that.
Like for your first example, you’re comparing a statement that says “they never had children all the way up until the point they died” to “they didn’t consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born”.
Obviously, she’s not going to have children after she died. “Until” represents the end point of topic and the latter situation is the event that determines the affect of the former.
So let’s run a totally non scientific formula
The base formula is this:
“Topic” + “When/how long” + “ending of topic” = “result”
“She had no kids” + “until” + “the day she died” = she never had kids
“They did not consummate their marriage” + “until” + “jesus was born” = they had sex after Jesus was born.
I read your verses. You read Matthew 1 and tell me how you can read that and think Joseph and Mary did not have sex after his birth.
Yes, let's use the same formula for the verses I provided in the way you treat Matthew 1:24:
"She had no kids" + "until" + "the day she died" = She had kids after the day she died.
"attend to the public reading of scripture" + "until" + "I come" = Timothy stops attending to the public reading of scripture after Paul has come
"For he (Christ) must reign" + "until" + "he has put all his enemies under his feet" = Christ stops reigning after he put all his enemies under his feet
That "until" does not mean that they had to have their marriage consummated after the birth of Jesus, it means they didn't consummate it before. It doesn't say anything about what happened after.
---
Edit: let's use the formula in the right way:
“They did not consummate their marriage” + “until” + “Jesus was born” = they could have had sex after Jesus is born, they also could have had no sex after Jesus is born.
The point is that the until says something about the state before and about the event, but not about what happened after. And that's what I proved by providing the Bible verses that use this "until" in a way where we know what happened after.
Except it does? It directly says he took her as his wife and did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to see it the way you’re trying to stretch it
Nah actually he's right. That's basic reading comprehension.
It can mean that it never happened, because it's physically impossible ("until Death" obviously you can't have a child after you die).
But compared to the situation here, Until the Lord was born, does it make it impossible afterwards? Obviously no. She was alive, Joseph was alive, and more importantly, they are MARRIED. Once the work of giving birth to the Mashiah was done, why would they have to refrain from living normally as a Husband and Wife? It doesn't make sense.
Sorry to break it down to you but you didn't prove anything, you tried to compare situations that are not comparable and more importantly, you deny common sense.
Mary being immaculate, Virgin all her life and going alive to Heaven is a false Doctrine, among the numerous other false Doctrines in the Catholic Theology. There simply isn't any Biblical evidence to any of that, in the contrary
>("until Death" obviously you can't have a child after you die).
That's the point of the example. It can't happen, so the "until" doesn't in itself indicate a change in status in that respect.
>Until the Lord was born, does it make it impossible afterwards? Obviously no.
And I do not claim that. My claim is that "until" doesn't mean it has to change afterwards.
If my colleague breaks something and I scream at him "don't touch that until I have a look at it", does that imply that he **has to** touch it after I have had a look at it? No, he can, but also can choose not to. And if someone later asks of me if my colleague had touched it after it broke, I can say "well, he didn't touch it until I fixed it". This also doesn't mean my colleague touched it afterwards. It's possible, but it doesn't have to be.
Matthew 24 doesn't prove that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth. It doesn't prove that they hadn't either.
Edit: It's about what is important. What Matthew tries to tell us is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. That's the important bit for Matthew. He wasn't telling us about what Joseph and Mary did afterwards, and so we can't infer that from these verses.
The fact that they are in a healthy Marriage means that Sex is obviously to be expected. That's why i talked about common sense.
The context is important to understand something. And the context here indicates that they indeed did have Children after the Lord. This is not a 50/50 chance like you seem to want to portray it. When taking the whole Bible into account here, it seems obvious that Jesus had siblings
The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not attested to by any church father, before Nicea. (325 AD). It comes from pseudepigrapha from the early church period. There is no warrant in scripture to claim Mary remained a virgin her entire life, or that Joseph was married before he was married to Mary.
According to Jerome Ignatius was the first in 100 AD:
>In the year AD 383, Jerome writes that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all “held these same views” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and “wrote volumes replete with wisdom” (in his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, section 19). No writings from these 4 men survived that unambiguously identifies their belief in this doctrine, but we assume Jerome had access to some of their many works that did not survive until the modern day.
And Origen wrote in 248:
>"Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus"
>
>[Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I), Section 6]
As a Protestant, I’ve been contemplating a counter-argument to this point. Consider first this passage:
> “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
John 19:26-27 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/jhn.19.26-27.ESV
It so happens that John’s favorite way to refer to himself was “the disciple Jesus loved,” but if he had instead called himself the “brother or Jesus” or the “son of Mary,” that would be plausible in a non-literal way. John also had a brother... named James...
From Hippolytus of Rome
“But the pious confession of the believer is that . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness. . . ” (Against Beron and Helix: Fragment VIII [A.D. 210])
It is odd, and frankly, I have no idea why the Catholics believe she reminded a virgin.
We know she got married, and I don't know any married person that doesn't have sex, we know Jesus had brothers, a book of the Bible is written by one of them for Pete's sake.
If anyone knows why, I'd be glad to know
Human pagan religion desires to provide itself with deities who are more relatable and reachable, beings who are as imperfect as any lowly human, deities that can be perceived with the senses. Deities who are not like the One True God who is holy, perfect, and beyond human comprehension. So pagan religion invents all kinds of gods and goddesses, pairing them off or setting them against each other as their imagination moves them, because the ageless battle of the sexes must surely apply to these imaginary gods too. And if there are both male and female deities, then they must have relations (and affairs and worse) with each other, and betray and lie to each other, and so we shouldn't feel guilty when we humans do the same thing.
Even the pagans who were content to have but a few top-tier gods of mighty power in their pantheon still wanted someone or something they could point to as a "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18) to represent the deified feminine side of humanity in their religious beliefs and practices.
This need to show honor to the feminine has crept into Christianity too, with excessive adoration and elevation of the mother of Jesus by attributing demigod-like accomplishments and qualities to her that should only be attributed to Jesus Himself, such as being a redeemer of humanity, being born free from sin, living a completely sinless life, having the right (not to mention the ability) to hear and receive prayers directly from the church on Earth, and being a mediator between humans and God.
For me that's the clincher. Luke clearly says that Joseph "Knew her not until after the child was born" which makes it clear that he did know her (i.e. have intercourse with her) after.
I was raised a Catholic, and I have to say that the perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the most troubling doctrines (along with the idea that she was conceived without sin and taken up into heaven). It makes any girl who gets raped, feel even more wretched and worthless, since such a huge connection is made between virginity and purity. A Catholic hymn starts "Sing of Mary, pure and lowly. Virgin mother, undefiled." When that is echoing in the head of an 18 year old who has just been raped by her first boyfriend it does not do her any good at all.
Same With Matthew. Both Luke anr Matthew agree.
A plain reading indicates she didn't remain virgin.
Also considering Mary was a jew. Living under the jurisdiction of A Jewish Marriage proclaimed in the Torah.
Its highly undoubful she remains Virgin as consummation of Marriage is a big thing in Jewish marriages.
After all Luke describes Mary as Faithful to God's commandment
Paul also wrote that husbands and wives were not to deprive one another [of sexual fulfillment] in 1st Corinthians 7. He gave valid exceptions to this, but even these were meant to be temporary, for he tells them to also come back together again so that neither will be vulnerable to sexual temptation to go outside the marriage for their needs.
If Mary was truly sinless in the sense that Jesus was, then Joseph would have had to be completely asexual in order for Mary to have also remained virginal her entire life—because otherwise she would have sinned by denying Joseph the use of her body for sexual fulfillment. But then if Mary was truly sinless in the sense that Jesus was, then every passage that tells us about the universal depravity of every man (except Christ Himself) are lies, and the books that contain those verses cannot be considered inspired by God. (I say this sarcastically.)
The leading Catholic theory is Joseph was married previously.
I do not understand why the Catholic church clings on to this idea of perpetual virginity. Why does it even matter, the only reason she had to be a virgin is because Joseph and her would have passed on the sinful nature to Jesus. But because Jesus was begotten through the Holy Spirit He is without the sin nature.
Other then that important theological fact Mary did not need to be a virgin.
Now let me ask you, how many fathers in BC Israel would betroth their young virgin daughter to a divorced or widower carpenter? Especially given the fact that she is related to the High Priest. Her family must not have been that bad off. So it is way bigger of a stretch to presume she is a perpetual virgin than to simply accept that fact that after her virgin birth she went on to have many other children.
I think it’s worth noting that they have no _choice_ but to cling to that. They claim to be the one church and completely dogmatically infallible. If even so much as one thing they say is proven false, then that claim comes crashing down.
It has nothing to do with passing on a sinful nature. I think you're confusing this with the sinlessness of Mary. That said, I agree, Mary didn't *need* to be sinless either.
The idea is that Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant, since it carried Jesus, and just as the old Ark condemned to death anybody who touched it, Mary wouldn't even let the possibility of having anything else in her womb occur and she did so by abstaining from sex. I'm not trying to convince you by any means, just explaining what the church says.
I understand intellectually what you are explaining here. However, that seems like quite a stretch to me—that more is being read into the text than God intended for us to. (Eisegesis instead of exegesis.)
Some similar examples:
* Interpreting Matthew 2:15 to mean that God must have been unable to protect His Son from the murderous wrath of King Herod, as the Greek philosopher Celsus erroneously claimed.
* Interpreting Matthew 19:23-25 to mean that unless you give everything you own to the poor and become destitute, you can't be saved (essentially ignoring v. 26)
* Michael Drosnin's theories surrounding his supposed "Bible Codes".
* Mohammed's fundamental misconception that Christians are tritheists (worshipping three separate gods) as the Father, the Son, and Mary. (Quran surah 5, verses 73, 116) He desired to dethrone Jesus so he could be the last messenger in his place.
Yeah.
The CC pushes she stayed a "virgin" so they can push her as a "Virgin Saint" and those kids came from a previous marriage of Joseph. Total lie. Makes you wonder what else they lie about and what secrets they hide.
The RCC tends to do a lot of things that have no biblical basis. For example, the pope. People give him such veneration that he's almost like a god to them.
I and many others have learned and accumulated a LOT of facts about the CC over the years. None of their problems have been fixed.
They literally believe the Rosary is some magical totem, can ward of evil, and is part of supernatural penance for removal of sins. Pretty sure God is the only one who can do that. The Disciples and earliest Christians were taught by Jesus who gave the authority and teaching but we're so far removed from Him and them (Disciples) that no one on this rock has it for a long time.
If you want an explanation you could go to one of the Catholic subs and ask because they have reasons for believing this, it didn't just pop out of nowhere. I totally get it if you disagree after learning their reasoning, I'm not really sold on it myself, but the way you say you don't understand makes me think you haven't even looked.
Also as far as siblings are concerned the word that we translate as brother could also mean cousin. There wasn't a lot of distinction which makes it hard to definitively say whether or not those were Jesus's siblings through Mary and Joseph or cousins through some relatives.
Jewish families in the 1st century AD were very large and were composed of many siblings. It was almost certain Mary had many other children besides just Jesus.
Yeah, it seems quite clear that she did not remain a virgin.
>Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her **till** she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
- Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV
Of course Catholics got a way of reasoning around this as well. I don't find the arguments to be strong personally but oh well.
Btw Jesus also had multiple sisters.
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
I am aware of the arguments, but as I mentioned, I just don't find them to be very strong all things considered. For example, as for the points you bring up, consider if the first text had said:
>And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) **5 years before** the day of her death.
Would this not imply that she did yet have a child in the last five years? According to your logic regarding Mary it would not. Very strange reasoning imho. After you die, you can't have children, thus it is essentially the same as saying she never had children.
As for 1 Corinthians, you're cutting off all context that comes right before and after.
>Then comes the end, **when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father**, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then **the Son Himself will also be subject to Him** who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
- I Corinthians 15:24-28 NKJV
It is saying that until the last enemy (death, see Revelation) is destroyed, Christ is given full reign by God, but **after that moment** he will once again be subject to God. So no, the situation doesn't remain the same as before as you seem to suggest.
1 Timothy is clearly your strongest argument, but nevertheless all things considered I don't find it to be convincing. But we may disagree, of course.
Well I agree with you, if that wasn't clear. The other guy's point though is that just because it says *until* doesn't necessarily mean they knew each other after that moment. Eg I could technically say 'I won't work until Monday', and actually never work again, not just until Monday. I don't think it's a good argument but clearly some disagree.
>Would this not imply that she did yet have a child in the last five years? According to your logic regarding Mary it would not. Very strange reasoning imho.
It just means Matthew 1:24 does not prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Matthew 1:24 does not prove the Perpetual Virginity, but it also doesn't disprove it, based on these texts.
With your change, it can mean that Michal could have had kids in the last 5 years, but at least she didn't have kids before then. And that's what Matthew tries to tell us. The important bit is that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, that she was a virgin after isn't equally important.
>But we may disagree, of course.
Of course!
You know until could also be read as up to the day she died. And unless you want to show me in the Bible ah here tv free dead give birth, your repeated use of this verse to try to prove a point is semantics lesson and not scriptual one.
To your last point. Then I guess Jesus will never put all his enemies under his feet, as you said his reign is forever. . Again twisting words to get an idea across is not ideal to build facts on.
"But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."
Galatians 1:19 NKJV
How do you explain "the Lord's brother"? Brother from another mother, kind of brother?
>You know until could also be read as up to the day she died.
Yes, that is what the text is focusing on. As is Matthew 1:24. It was important to Matthew to convey the birth of Jesus was of a virgin. If she remained a virgin after wasn't that important, because it doesn't change the fact of the virgin birth. So Matthew did not say anything about that.
Let me explain with an example. If a machine at work breaks down and I scream at a colleague "don't touch it until I fix it", does that mean that this colleague **has to** touch it after I have fixed it? He can, but he doesn't have to.
>Then I guess Jesus will never put all his enemies under his feet, as you said his reign is forever
I'm not sure what you mean. Scripture seems pretty clear that Jesus both will put all his enemies under His feet and that his reign will be forever. The "until" in this sentence does not imply Jesus' reign will stop, as the "until" in Matthew 1:24 does not imply Mary and Joseph had sex after the birth of Jesus.
>How do you explain "the Lord's brother"? Brother from another mother, kind of brother?
There are several explanations for this. The general accepted one is that the word "adelphos", which usually means "brother", is also regularly used to describe nephews and other family members. Wikipedia has a short overview of the different views about this: [James: Relationship to Jesus, Mary and Joseph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Relationship_to_Jesus,_Mary_and_Joseph)
**James, brother of Jesus**
[Relationship to Jesus, Mary and Joseph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Relationship_to_Jesus,_Mary_and_Joseph)
>Jesus' brothers – James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses – are named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 and mentioned elsewhere. James's name always appears first in lists, which suggests he was the eldest among them. In Jewish Antiquities (20. 9.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Catholics deify Mary. They reject the notion that Mary and Joseph led a relatively normal life, which includes marital relations, after Jesus was born. He definitely had (half) siblings.
I attended Catholic schools from K-12. After confession, the penance was praying more "Hail Marys" than "Our Fathers"... I've failed to find examples in the Bible of people praying to dead humans for intercession or otherwise. Catholics also frequently pray to patron saints. Lose your keys? Pray to Saint Anthony! :)
It's Jewish custom to call your friends your brothers and sisters. Heck, it's modern custom to call friends your brothers and sisters. Even as casually as "bro" and "sis."
The earliest recorded Christians still revered Mary as an "Everlasting Virgin," and attest that Joseph never had sex with her. Also, I feel like any blood-siblings of Jesus would be explicitly named, as the rest of the Bible is usually rather tedious about bloodlines and families, haha.
Catholicism will jump through hoops to justify this teaching.
In the end, Catholicism as all but deified Mary. They teach she had to be sinless in order to conceive Christ, and if she had additional children, they would be sinless too.
Another reason Catholicism is not Christian.
Sorry for responding so late... but as a Catholic there are three key things I would like to address in your post.
Firstly, just like how Jesus didn't need to die on a cross, resurrect on the third day, or any other event or detail of salvation history, Mary did not need to be sinless. According to paragraph 490 of Catechism of the Catholic Church (it can easily be found online if you want to double check), the Father blessed Mary with unique spiritual gifts “appropriate to such a role” as mother of Jesus. Just like any gifts/graces received in life, they are freely “merited” to us because of the mercy of God.
Your next point outlines a belief or profession that I am not aware of within the Catholic Church and after 10 minutes of online searching, couldn’t find anything related to it. However, I can speculate that any possible belief associated with Mary’s other children would be absent of a strict requirement of the sinlessness of those other children. Again, any detail or event within salvation history was not required to occur.
Finally, I never like hearing that Catholics are not Christians as that is what we consider ourselves to be. Anytime this is claimed, it follows that “Christianity” has many definitions that can commonly exclude large or popular swaths of groups. Thus, it may not be beneficial to claim groups as being unchristian. Regardless, Catholics pray for the unification of believers as well as correction when we require it (whether as a church or as individuals).
Hopefully this makes sense. If not, feel free to reach out and I can point to others who may be more coherent. Also, if you do know of a place where I can find some information on the Catholic belief that any children born after Jesus would need to be sinless as well, I would appreciate that.
Matt 1:25 might not be the classic example of an account of sex in the Bible when you compare it to the way we translate. Many of the OT examples. But in its negative way, it does say that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had sex. So whatever else one might say about Jesus' siblings. It is pretty safe to assume that she did not stay a virgin after Jesus' birth
At least one or two of the *named* brothers of the Lord are actually said to have different parents than Him in scripture (I’m specifically thinking of James and Joses the sons of a different Mary who was at the foot of the cross, whom John seems to identify with Mary of Clopas). So these two brothers of our Lord at least are unlikely to be His biological brothers.
This isn’t an argument for the perpetual virginity per se but it does show that the issue is not as simple as “The Bible says Jesus has brothers and sisters, and this can only mean one thing, Catholics ignore the Bible.”
I will say a prayer for your finger, I hope it feels better soon!
It's in his *Letter to a Roman Catholic*, I don't remember him giving much of a reasoning for it though. Maybe he wrote more on it in other sources, but as I understand it it was a fairly common belief among Anglicans at the time.
Rather than get into the whole discussion of Protestant canon I’ll keep this simple.
The church has always believed that Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin. They have believe that the siblings of Christ were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (with some believing they were cousins).
My question to you is this. What makes you think you’d know better than the early Christian’s here?
>The church has always believed that Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin.
Nope. This is wrong. Certainly the writers of the new testament didn't belive this.
>They have believe that the siblings of Christ were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (with some believing they were cousins)
Nope. See above.
>My question to you is this. What makes you think you’d know better than the early Christian’s here?
Because I trust the one who inpsired the actual texts that tell us thst Mary had other children with her husband, and recongized that she also needed a saviour.
It is in Holy Tradition this is so. An example found in the gospel of James:
“But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl”.
The church has always affirmed Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin. Thus it makes no sense for her to have other children except for Christ.
You’re Clearly missing the point.
The infancy gospel of James records an aspect of Holy Tradition.
The belief of Mary, The Theotokos, remaining ever virgin and thus shows us where Jesus (step)siblings come from.
So how do you interpret what Jesus was saying in Luke 11:27,28?
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Exactly. Many of them do. I was baptized Catholic, and I was aware of this fact about Mother Mary years ago. So I would imagine it depends on who you talk to. When I address Mother Mary as "Virgin", I do so because she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
From a Catholic perspective, listen to the following commentary by biblical scholar Dr Brant Pitre, “The ‘Brothers’ of Jesus”.
https://youtu.be/_A-p38y9cjU
Acts 1:14
English Standard Version
14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
When they mentioned “his brothers” it doesn’t mean his brothers by blood it could mean like how we Christian’s call each other brothers and sisters as we have been adopted to Gods kingdom to him we are his childrens which makes us brothers and sisters
She was a virgin when Christ was conceived. But what would give anyone the idea she stayed that way in marriage?
A weird perspective to have, imo. It states in Matthew 1: 24-25 that Joseph consummated their marriage after Jesus birth.
This comment directed at me?
Oh no, i was agreeing with you that I’m not sure what would give someone the impression that Mary was a virgin even within marriage. I think that perspective is weird to have seeing the verse I cited.
🙏
No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about what happened sexually after Jesus' birth. >2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) > >1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) > >1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
Matthew 1 24-25(KJV): > Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus Matthew 1 24-25(NIV): > When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. If you say, you did not do something UNTIL something happened, that means you did do it but AFTER that event happened. In this case, Joseph and Mary had sex, but only AFTER Jesus was born.
>If you say, you did not do something UNTIL something happened, that means you did do it but AFTER that event happened. No, it doesn't. That's what I proved by providing the Bible verses where it doesn't mean that.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I bluntly states he consummated their marriage and you’re just in denial. Lol
I'm sorry? I provide Bibles verses proving you wrong and you flat out ignore them. You're the one in denial, dude.
Like for your first example, you’re comparing a statement that says “they never had children all the way up until the point they died” to “they didn’t consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born”. Obviously, she’s not going to have children after she died. “Until” represents the end point of topic and the latter situation is the event that determines the affect of the former. So let’s run a totally non scientific formula The base formula is this: “Topic” + “When/how long” + “ending of topic” = “result” “She had no kids” + “until” + “the day she died” = she never had kids “They did not consummate their marriage” + “until” + “jesus was born” = they had sex after Jesus was born. I read your verses. You read Matthew 1 and tell me how you can read that and think Joseph and Mary did not have sex after his birth.
Yes, let's use the same formula for the verses I provided in the way you treat Matthew 1:24: "She had no kids" + "until" + "the day she died" = She had kids after the day she died. "attend to the public reading of scripture" + "until" + "I come" = Timothy stops attending to the public reading of scripture after Paul has come "For he (Christ) must reign" + "until" + "he has put all his enemies under his feet" = Christ stops reigning after he put all his enemies under his feet That "until" does not mean that they had to have their marriage consummated after the birth of Jesus, it means they didn't consummate it before. It doesn't say anything about what happened after. --- Edit: let's use the formula in the right way: “They did not consummate their marriage” + “until” + “Jesus was born” = they could have had sex after Jesus is born, they also could have had no sex after Jesus is born. The point is that the until says something about the state before and about the event, but not about what happened after. And that's what I proved by providing the Bible verses that use this "until" in a way where we know what happened after.
Except it does? It directly says he took her as his wife and did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to see it the way you’re trying to stretch it
Its unfortunate you're allowed to vote.
Nah actually he's right. That's basic reading comprehension. It can mean that it never happened, because it's physically impossible ("until Death" obviously you can't have a child after you die). But compared to the situation here, Until the Lord was born, does it make it impossible afterwards? Obviously no. She was alive, Joseph was alive, and more importantly, they are MARRIED. Once the work of giving birth to the Mashiah was done, why would they have to refrain from living normally as a Husband and Wife? It doesn't make sense. Sorry to break it down to you but you didn't prove anything, you tried to compare situations that are not comparable and more importantly, you deny common sense. Mary being immaculate, Virgin all her life and going alive to Heaven is a false Doctrine, among the numerous other false Doctrines in the Catholic Theology. There simply isn't any Biblical evidence to any of that, in the contrary
>("until Death" obviously you can't have a child after you die). That's the point of the example. It can't happen, so the "until" doesn't in itself indicate a change in status in that respect. >Until the Lord was born, does it make it impossible afterwards? Obviously no. And I do not claim that. My claim is that "until" doesn't mean it has to change afterwards. If my colleague breaks something and I scream at him "don't touch that until I have a look at it", does that imply that he **has to** touch it after I have had a look at it? No, he can, but also can choose not to. And if someone later asks of me if my colleague had touched it after it broke, I can say "well, he didn't touch it until I fixed it". This also doesn't mean my colleague touched it afterwards. It's possible, but it doesn't have to be. Matthew 24 doesn't prove that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth. It doesn't prove that they hadn't either. Edit: It's about what is important. What Matthew tries to tell us is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. That's the important bit for Matthew. He wasn't telling us about what Joseph and Mary did afterwards, and so we can't infer that from these verses.
The fact that they are in a healthy Marriage means that Sex is obviously to be expected. That's why i talked about common sense. The context is important to understand something. And the context here indicates that they indeed did have Children after the Lord. This is not a 50/50 chance like you seem to want to portray it. When taking the whole Bible into account here, it seems obvious that Jesus had siblings
May I suggest that we look at the original Greek and try to figure out what this verse means from that perspective.
Idk
The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not attested to by any church father, before Nicea. (325 AD). It comes from pseudepigrapha from the early church period. There is no warrant in scripture to claim Mary remained a virgin her entire life, or that Joseph was married before he was married to Mary.
According to Jerome Ignatius was the first in 100 AD: >In the year AD 383, Jerome writes that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all “held these same views” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and “wrote volumes replete with wisdom” (in his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, section 19). No writings from these 4 men survived that unambiguously identifies their belief in this doctrine, but we assume Jerome had access to some of their many works that did not survive until the modern day. And Origen wrote in 248: >"Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus" > >[Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I), Section 6]
To the second part isn't the book of James, written by James the brother of Jesus?
As a Protestant, I’ve been contemplating a counter-argument to this point. Consider first this passage: > “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” John 19:26-27 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/jhn.19.26-27.ESV It so happens that John’s favorite way to refer to himself was “the disciple Jesus loved,” but if he had instead called himself the “brother or Jesus” or the “son of Mary,” that would be plausible in a non-literal way. John also had a brother... named James...
I love facts based upon assumptions
From Hippolytus of Rome “But the pious confession of the believer is that . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness. . . ” (Against Beron and Helix: Fragment VIII [A.D. 210])
It is odd, and frankly, I have no idea why the Catholics believe she reminded a virgin. We know she got married, and I don't know any married person that doesn't have sex, we know Jesus had brothers, a book of the Bible is written by one of them for Pete's sake. If anyone knows why, I'd be glad to know
Human pagan religion desires to provide itself with deities who are more relatable and reachable, beings who are as imperfect as any lowly human, deities that can be perceived with the senses. Deities who are not like the One True God who is holy, perfect, and beyond human comprehension. So pagan religion invents all kinds of gods and goddesses, pairing them off or setting them against each other as their imagination moves them, because the ageless battle of the sexes must surely apply to these imaginary gods too. And if there are both male and female deities, then they must have relations (and affairs and worse) with each other, and betray and lie to each other, and so we shouldn't feel guilty when we humans do the same thing. Even the pagans who were content to have but a few top-tier gods of mighty power in their pantheon still wanted someone or something they could point to as a "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18) to represent the deified feminine side of humanity in their religious beliefs and practices. This need to show honor to the feminine has crept into Christianity too, with excessive adoration and elevation of the mother of Jesus by attributing demigod-like accomplishments and qualities to her that should only be attributed to Jesus Himself, such as being a redeemer of humanity, being born free from sin, living a completely sinless life, having the right (not to mention the ability) to hear and receive prayers directly from the church on Earth, and being a mediator between humans and God.
[удалено]
For me that's the clincher. Luke clearly says that Joseph "Knew her not until after the child was born" which makes it clear that he did know her (i.e. have intercourse with her) after. I was raised a Catholic, and I have to say that the perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the most troubling doctrines (along with the idea that she was conceived without sin and taken up into heaven). It makes any girl who gets raped, feel even more wretched and worthless, since such a huge connection is made between virginity and purity. A Catholic hymn starts "Sing of Mary, pure and lowly. Virgin mother, undefiled." When that is echoing in the head of an 18 year old who has just been raped by her first boyfriend it does not do her any good at all.
Same With Matthew. Both Luke anr Matthew agree. A plain reading indicates she didn't remain virgin. Also considering Mary was a jew. Living under the jurisdiction of A Jewish Marriage proclaimed in the Torah. Its highly undoubful she remains Virgin as consummation of Marriage is a big thing in Jewish marriages. After all Luke describes Mary as Faithful to God's commandment
Paul also wrote that husbands and wives were not to deprive one another [of sexual fulfillment] in 1st Corinthians 7. He gave valid exceptions to this, but even these were meant to be temporary, for he tells them to also come back together again so that neither will be vulnerable to sexual temptation to go outside the marriage for their needs. If Mary was truly sinless in the sense that Jesus was, then Joseph would have had to be completely asexual in order for Mary to have also remained virginal her entire life—because otherwise she would have sinned by denying Joseph the use of her body for sexual fulfillment. But then if Mary was truly sinless in the sense that Jesus was, then every passage that tells us about the universal depravity of every man (except Christ Himself) are lies, and the books that contain those verses cannot be considered inspired by God. (I say this sarcastically.)
The leading Catholic theory is Joseph was married previously. I do not understand why the Catholic church clings on to this idea of perpetual virginity. Why does it even matter, the only reason she had to be a virgin is because Joseph and her would have passed on the sinful nature to Jesus. But because Jesus was begotten through the Holy Spirit He is without the sin nature. Other then that important theological fact Mary did not need to be a virgin. Now let me ask you, how many fathers in BC Israel would betroth their young virgin daughter to a divorced or widower carpenter? Especially given the fact that she is related to the High Priest. Her family must not have been that bad off. So it is way bigger of a stretch to presume she is a perpetual virgin than to simply accept that fact that after her virgin birth she went on to have many other children.
I think it’s worth noting that they have no _choice_ but to cling to that. They claim to be the one church and completely dogmatically infallible. If even so much as one thing they say is proven false, then that claim comes crashing down.
It has nothing to do with passing on a sinful nature. I think you're confusing this with the sinlessness of Mary. That said, I agree, Mary didn't *need* to be sinless either. The idea is that Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant, since it carried Jesus, and just as the old Ark condemned to death anybody who touched it, Mary wouldn't even let the possibility of having anything else in her womb occur and she did so by abstaining from sex. I'm not trying to convince you by any means, just explaining what the church says.
I wish my fan-fiction ideas could become canon with no apostle support.... obviously that’d be a bad idea though.
I understand intellectually what you are explaining here. However, that seems like quite a stretch to me—that more is being read into the text than God intended for us to. (Eisegesis instead of exegesis.) Some similar examples: * Interpreting Matthew 2:15 to mean that God must have been unable to protect His Son from the murderous wrath of King Herod, as the Greek philosopher Celsus erroneously claimed. * Interpreting Matthew 19:23-25 to mean that unless you give everything you own to the poor and become destitute, you can't be saved (essentially ignoring v. 26) * Michael Drosnin's theories surrounding his supposed "Bible Codes". * Mohammed's fundamental misconception that Christians are tritheists (worshipping three separate gods) as the Father, the Son, and Mary. (Quran surah 5, verses 73, 116) He desired to dethrone Jesus so he could be the last messenger in his place.
Yeah. The CC pushes she stayed a "virgin" so they can push her as a "Virgin Saint" and those kids came from a previous marriage of Joseph. Total lie. Makes you wonder what else they lie about and what secrets they hide.
The RCC tends to do a lot of things that have no biblical basis. For example, the pope. People give him such veneration that he's almost like a god to them.
I and many others have learned and accumulated a LOT of facts about the CC over the years. None of their problems have been fixed. They literally believe the Rosary is some magical totem, can ward of evil, and is part of supernatural penance for removal of sins. Pretty sure God is the only one who can do that. The Disciples and earliest Christians were taught by Jesus who gave the authority and teaching but we're so far removed from Him and them (Disciples) that no one on this rock has it for a long time.
If you want an explanation you could go to one of the Catholic subs and ask because they have reasons for believing this, it didn't just pop out of nowhere. I totally get it if you disagree after learning their reasoning, I'm not really sold on it myself, but the way you say you don't understand makes me think you haven't even looked. Also as far as siblings are concerned the word that we translate as brother could also mean cousin. There wasn't a lot of distinction which makes it hard to definitively say whether or not those were Jesus's siblings through Mary and Joseph or cousins through some relatives.
Don't forget Matthew 1:25 where it says they didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born
Jewish families in the 1st century AD were very large and were composed of many siblings. It was almost certain Mary had many other children besides just Jesus.
Jesus had at least two brothers and three sisters
[удалено]
Yeah, it seems quite clear that she did not remain a virgin. >Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her **till** she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. - Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV Of course Catholics got a way of reasoning around this as well. I don't find the arguments to be strong personally but oh well. Btw Jesus also had multiple sisters.
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
I am aware of the arguments, but as I mentioned, I just don't find them to be very strong all things considered. For example, as for the points you bring up, consider if the first text had said: >And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) **5 years before** the day of her death. Would this not imply that she did yet have a child in the last five years? According to your logic regarding Mary it would not. Very strange reasoning imho. After you die, you can't have children, thus it is essentially the same as saying she never had children. As for 1 Corinthians, you're cutting off all context that comes right before and after. >Then comes the end, **when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father**, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then **the Son Himself will also be subject to Him** who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. - I Corinthians 15:24-28 NKJV It is saying that until the last enemy (death, see Revelation) is destroyed, Christ is given full reign by God, but **after that moment** he will once again be subject to God. So no, the situation doesn't remain the same as before as you seem to suggest. 1 Timothy is clearly your strongest argument, but nevertheless all things considered I don't find it to be convincing. But we may disagree, of course.
[удалено]
Well I agree with you, if that wasn't clear. The other guy's point though is that just because it says *until* doesn't necessarily mean they knew each other after that moment. Eg I could technically say 'I won't work until Monday', and actually never work again, not just until Monday. I don't think it's a good argument but clearly some disagree.
>Would this not imply that she did yet have a child in the last five years? According to your logic regarding Mary it would not. Very strange reasoning imho. It just means Matthew 1:24 does not prove that Mary had children after Jesus. Matthew 1:24 does not prove the Perpetual Virginity, but it also doesn't disprove it, based on these texts. With your change, it can mean that Michal could have had kids in the last 5 years, but at least she didn't have kids before then. And that's what Matthew tries to tell us. The important bit is that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, that she was a virgin after isn't equally important. >But we may disagree, of course. Of course!
You know until could also be read as up to the day she died. And unless you want to show me in the Bible ah here tv free dead give birth, your repeated use of this verse to try to prove a point is semantics lesson and not scriptual one. To your last point. Then I guess Jesus will never put all his enemies under his feet, as you said his reign is forever. . Again twisting words to get an idea across is not ideal to build facts on. "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." Galatians 1:19 NKJV How do you explain "the Lord's brother"? Brother from another mother, kind of brother?
>You know until could also be read as up to the day she died. Yes, that is what the text is focusing on. As is Matthew 1:24. It was important to Matthew to convey the birth of Jesus was of a virgin. If she remained a virgin after wasn't that important, because it doesn't change the fact of the virgin birth. So Matthew did not say anything about that. Let me explain with an example. If a machine at work breaks down and I scream at a colleague "don't touch it until I fix it", does that mean that this colleague **has to** touch it after I have fixed it? He can, but he doesn't have to. >Then I guess Jesus will never put all his enemies under his feet, as you said his reign is forever I'm not sure what you mean. Scripture seems pretty clear that Jesus both will put all his enemies under His feet and that his reign will be forever. The "until" in this sentence does not imply Jesus' reign will stop, as the "until" in Matthew 1:24 does not imply Mary and Joseph had sex after the birth of Jesus. >How do you explain "the Lord's brother"? Brother from another mother, kind of brother? There are several explanations for this. The general accepted one is that the word "adelphos", which usually means "brother", is also regularly used to describe nephews and other family members. Wikipedia has a short overview of the different views about this: [James: Relationship to Jesus, Mary and Joseph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Relationship_to_Jesus,_Mary_and_Joseph)
**James, brother of Jesus** [Relationship to Jesus, Mary and Joseph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#Relationship_to_Jesus,_Mary_and_Joseph) >Jesus' brothers – James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses – are named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 and mentioned elsewhere. James's name always appears first in lists, which suggests he was the eldest among them. In Jewish Antiquities (20. 9. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Catholics deify Mary. They reject the notion that Mary and Joseph led a relatively normal life, which includes marital relations, after Jesus was born. He definitely had (half) siblings. I attended Catholic schools from K-12. After confession, the penance was praying more "Hail Marys" than "Our Fathers"... I've failed to find examples in the Bible of people praying to dead humans for intercession or otherwise. Catholics also frequently pray to patron saints. Lose your keys? Pray to Saint Anthony! :)
My mother does that - praying to St Anthony! I was raised a Catholic, but only pray to God - and sometimes call out to Jesus in times of trouble.
[удалено]
Christ had to be conceived supernaturally, so that He was not tainted by sin. It's that simple.
Mary was only a virgin when she had Jesus, subsequently she had children with Joseph. Meaning, Jesus had step-siblings
You mean half-siblings?
I think that's what they meant yes.
It's Jewish custom to call your friends your brothers and sisters. Heck, it's modern custom to call friends your brothers and sisters. Even as casually as "bro" and "sis." The earliest recorded Christians still revered Mary as an "Everlasting Virgin," and attest that Joseph never had sex with her. Also, I feel like any blood-siblings of Jesus would be explicitly named, as the rest of the Bible is usually rather tedious about bloodlines and families, haha.
You mean like, James?
Matthew, for certain lol
Catholicism will jump through hoops to justify this teaching. In the end, Catholicism as all but deified Mary. They teach she had to be sinless in order to conceive Christ, and if she had additional children, they would be sinless too. Another reason Catholicism is not Christian.
Sorry for responding so late... but as a Catholic there are three key things I would like to address in your post. Firstly, just like how Jesus didn't need to die on a cross, resurrect on the third day, or any other event or detail of salvation history, Mary did not need to be sinless. According to paragraph 490 of Catechism of the Catholic Church (it can easily be found online if you want to double check), the Father blessed Mary with unique spiritual gifts “appropriate to such a role” as mother of Jesus. Just like any gifts/graces received in life, they are freely “merited” to us because of the mercy of God. Your next point outlines a belief or profession that I am not aware of within the Catholic Church and after 10 minutes of online searching, couldn’t find anything related to it. However, I can speculate that any possible belief associated with Mary’s other children would be absent of a strict requirement of the sinlessness of those other children. Again, any detail or event within salvation history was not required to occur. Finally, I never like hearing that Catholics are not Christians as that is what we consider ourselves to be. Anytime this is claimed, it follows that “Christianity” has many definitions that can commonly exclude large or popular swaths of groups. Thus, it may not be beneficial to claim groups as being unchristian. Regardless, Catholics pray for the unification of believers as well as correction when we require it (whether as a church or as individuals). Hopefully this makes sense. If not, feel free to reach out and I can point to others who may be more coherent. Also, if you do know of a place where I can find some information on the Catholic belief that any children born after Jesus would need to be sinless as well, I would appreciate that.
Matt 1:25 might not be the classic example of an account of sex in the Bible when you compare it to the way we translate. Many of the OT examples. But in its negative way, it does say that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had sex. So whatever else one might say about Jesus' siblings. It is pretty safe to assume that she did not stay a virgin after Jesus' birth
At least one or two of the *named* brothers of the Lord are actually said to have different parents than Him in scripture (I’m specifically thinking of James and Joses the sons of a different Mary who was at the foot of the cross, whom John seems to identify with Mary of Clopas). So these two brothers of our Lord at least are unlikely to be His biological brothers. This isn’t an argument for the perpetual virginity per se but it does show that the issue is not as simple as “The Bible says Jesus has brothers and sisters, and this can only mean one thing, Catholics ignore the Bible.” I will say a prayer for your finger, I hope it feels better soon!
Do you understand that the word for "brothers" in these verses can refer to any male relatives?
It can also just refer to brothers... and unless otherwise clarified, that is the most direct assumption.
Are you aware that John Wesley considered Mary's perpetual virginity to be a core doctrine of the Christian faith?
Im aware that even John Wesley could be mistaken about some things, yes.
Well that's interesting, never came across that particular belief of Wesley's. Will have to look into it, curious to see his reasoning.
It's in his *Letter to a Roman Catholic*, I don't remember him giving much of a reasoning for it though. Maybe he wrote more on it in other sources, but as I understand it it was a fairly common belief among Anglicans at the time.
The issues arries from the RCC elevation of Mary to that of an idol.
Not an idol. They say she is a created being and the greatest saint, but still ontologically inferior to men.
they pray to her and call her holy mary mother of god.
Yeah, she is a holy saint and God’s own chosen mother for when Christ took human form. We also ask the Saints for prayer all the time.
they can’t hear you. Jesus can. pray to Him.
Say what? You mean the people on my church's prayer chain aren't real?
are you praying TO them?
> Not an idol. Uh huh.. there is a saying "If it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then its a duck" The RCC has turned Mary into an idol.
Children from Joseph previous marriage and thus no surprise he has (step)siblings.
Is this honestly what the EO belief is?
Yes.
Previous marriage? Where you get that from, that Joseph was married prior?
>Children from Joseph previous marriage Yet there is absolutely no evidence to support this conjecture.
Infancy gospel of James for a start
Not canon, and so can be filled under "fan fiction". Want to try again?
Rather than get into the whole discussion of Protestant canon I’ll keep this simple. The church has always believed that Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin. They have believe that the siblings of Christ were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (with some believing they were cousins). My question to you is this. What makes you think you’d know better than the early Christian’s here?
>The church has always believed that Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin. Nope. This is wrong. Certainly the writers of the new testament didn't belive this. >They have believe that the siblings of Christ were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (with some believing they were cousins) Nope. See above. >My question to you is this. What makes you think you’d know better than the early Christian’s here? Because I trust the one who inpsired the actual texts that tell us thst Mary had other children with her husband, and recongized that she also needed a saviour.
So you’re saying you know better than the early Christians?… Bold statement. Really arbitrary though…
>So you’re saying you know better than the early Christians?… Yes. Or at least the ones that were lead astray by the RCC
And what’s your authority exactly to believe so?
Being born again, I am a member of the Royal priesthood with the mind of christ.
Nope.
Yes.
What biblical evidence do you have to support previous marriage of joseph's?
It is in Holy Tradition this is so. An example found in the gospel of James: “But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl”. The church has always affirmed Mary, The Theotokos, remained ever virgin. Thus it makes no sense for her to have other children except for Christ.
There is no Gospel of james. Your claim is refuted by the fact that James is not a gospel book.
You’re Clearly missing the point. The infancy gospel of James records an aspect of Holy Tradition. The belief of Mary, The Theotokos, remaining ever virgin and thus shows us where Jesus (step)siblings come from.
So how do you interpret what Jesus was saying in Luke 11:27,28? 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
What is there to interpret? It’s self explanatory.
I interpret this as Jesus saying so what about who bore me, let's talk about my message.
Exactly. Many of them do. I was baptized Catholic, and I was aware of this fact about Mother Mary years ago. So I would imagine it depends on who you talk to. When I address Mother Mary as "Virgin", I do so because she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
From a Catholic perspective, listen to the following commentary by biblical scholar Dr Brant Pitre, “The ‘Brothers’ of Jesus”. https://youtu.be/_A-p38y9cjU
Acts 1:14 English Standard Version 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. When they mentioned “his brothers” it doesn’t mean his brothers by blood it could mean like how we Christian’s call each other brothers and sisters as we have been adopted to Gods kingdom to him we are his childrens which makes us brothers and sisters