Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity
Seton Magazine ^ | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 05/31/2014 4:33:21 PM PDT by narses

In my previous article, I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate adelphe is translated 24 times only as “sister”. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus’ Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called “brothers”.

Brothers or Cousins?

Now, it’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where sungenis appears:

And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)

What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.

What about Jude and James?

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.

Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). It’s true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and (to say the same thing another way) nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture. Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary. Human Tradition

The alleged disproofs utterly fail in their purpose. The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.

If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. To a person, they all testify that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and indeed, thought that this protected the doctrine of the Incarnation, as a miraculous birth from a mother who was a virgin before, during and after the birth.


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 next last

1 posted on 05/31/2014 4:33:21 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses; dcwusmc; Jed Eckert; Recovering Ex-hippie; KingOfVagabonds; Berlin_Freeper; UnRuley1; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

2 posted on 05/31/2014 4:33:35 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Woman, there is your son...son, there is your mother. And from then on, John took her into his care. Wouldn’t have been necessary if she had sons to take care her...


3 posted on 05/31/2014 4:38:09 PM PDT by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

So Mary and Joseph were never married?


4 posted on 05/31/2014 4:39:07 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

How does that question pop into the discussion?


5 posted on 05/31/2014 4:41:37 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

anti-Christian???


6 posted on 05/31/2014 4:48:31 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bike800

BINGO!!! The one sentence that blows it out of the park.


7 posted on 05/31/2014 4:49:27 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: narses

Well, if Mary remained a virgin, then she never consummated her marriage with Joseph. Thus two never became one in the grander scheme of things.


8 posted on 05/31/2014 4:57:14 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

No where is there any Gospel that suggests that Mary ever had sex.

You seem hung up an the sex ACT itself.

Why?


9 posted on 05/31/2014 4:59:03 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses

Mary was not an incarnation (rehash) of a Pagan Godess.

She was a humble servant of God, and favored above all other women because God chose her to bring bring about The fleshly manifestation of God — Jesus!

As such, this does NOT require Mary remain a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus.
In other words the divinity of Jesus is NOT attacked by the humanity of Mary.
Indeed the divinity of Jesus is derived from the father (God, though the Holy Spirit).

It seems sin is inherited or visited upon the children through the father, not the maternal side. (there are scriptures to this point). Thus since the father is God, Jesus can come into the world sinless. Mary not need be sinless her entire life to be the vessel that bore Jesus. However Mary was indeed a virgin we know at least until Jesus was born. Since the bible indicates Jesus had brothers, we can deduce that Joseph was the father of Jesus’s siblings.

This in no way impugns the nature of Jesus, or Mary.


10 posted on 05/31/2014 5:05:48 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

It would sure SEEM as if they wed, because they were living together as man and wife 12 years after Christ’s BIRTH, when the family went to Jerusalem and, after leaving for home, left Him behind. I cannot for the life of me fathom how a man would marry a woman, then not have marital relations with her for over 12-15 years or more. They both were normal human beings, after all. This belief in her perpetual virginity makes ZERO sense to me, just as so much of the RC doctrine does.

From the viewpoint of one who reads Scripture and has a reasonable amount of good sense and curiosity, such things as praying to Mary or anyone else but God Himself, or not KNOWING FOR SURE THAT YOU ARE SAVED, SACTIFIED AND SURE OF YOUR PLACE IN HEAVEN WHEN GOD CALLS YOUR NAME run absolutely COUNTER to God’s Own, sure Words. I have yet to find these things in my 3-4 favorite English translations, but I have another 35 to go through yet. If anyone can point me to book, chapter and verse, as well as version, I would be ever so grateful.


11 posted on 05/31/2014 5:07:53 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: narses

Did say that Yashua had brothers - i.e. “James, the brother of Yashua” ... where did he come from????


12 posted on 05/31/2014 5:08:11 PM PDT by SkyDancer (If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

“As such, this does NOT require Mary remain a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus.”

Nor does it REQUIRE her to lose her virginity.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)


13 posted on 05/31/2014 5:08:14 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

That reading thing again. Try reading the article. It will answer your question. Really!


14 posted on 05/31/2014 5:08:58 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin


15 posted on 05/31/2014 5:10:29 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: narses
Oh man, Freerepublic and the Catholic/Protestant Schism. Wow. Can I interject here and point out a verse?

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS -Matthew 1:25

16 posted on 05/31/2014 5:11:10 PM PDT by equalator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

James the brother of Jesus is named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, along with three other brothers (Joseph [or “Joses”], Simon and Judas [Jude]) ...


17 posted on 05/31/2014 5:11:29 PM PDT by SkyDancer (If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: narses
Joseph kept her a virgin until Christ was born. That he had siblings indicates Mary did not remain a virgin.

Boy, you Catholics love to major in the minors.

18 posted on 05/31/2014 5:13:12 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: narses

Mary also said “Since I do not know man”, I believe the different interpretations from the original verse would have some assert she meant she would never know man.

Also, the Orthodox seem to think that God, Jesus, Son of God, came from a sacred place, hence, Mary did not have run-of-the-mill sex after the birth of Jesus.

Apologetics details.


19 posted on 05/31/2014 5:16:37 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

James the cousin you mean, unless you are confused and think that the Bible was written by King James?


20 posted on 05/31/2014 5:17:12 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: narses
> "No where is there any Gospel that suggests that Mary ever had sex."

I have no strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that Matthew 1:25 at least suggests it. It would be odd to say that Joseph refrained from having sex with Mary until after the birth of Jesus, if he continued to refrain afterward as well. If he never consummated the marriage, then that's what it would make sense to say.

21 posted on 05/31/2014 5:19:41 PM PDT by GJones2 (Mary a virgin throughout her marriage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“That he had siblings indicates Mary did not remain a virgin.”

No, first it is most likely — as the article lays out in easy to read english - that the original text used the word that can easily translate, and in context does translate as “cousin” not “brother”. Even if he had siblings, they could easily have been from a prior marriage by Joseph.

Since it was accepted truth for the first aeon and a half of the Christian Era that Mary was a Virgin, I accept the Church view and reject the heretical proddie view.


22 posted on 05/31/2014 5:19:58 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narses
just as all heresies are much later corruptions

That's just it. In the Bible, I can understand the arguments about brothers versus cousins. And I can understand the argument about the verb where "Joseph didn't know his wife until she gave birth". Either way, perpetual virgin or virgin until she gave birth but not after, they both can be argued from the Biblical passages.

But I can't understand throwing out the heresy word. A heresy is a belief against a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Read the creed, Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary". There is no core doctrine about what happened with Mary afterwards. It's not about Mary...

Additionally, the angel told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his bride. If the marriage was never consummated, was it really a valid marriage? So Joseph could have asked for an annulment?

But either way, it does not impact my salvation.

23 posted on 05/31/2014 5:21:33 PM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Nope. James. The brother of Yashua. Matthew 13:55 - doesn’t say cousin. Says brother. Not brother in Christ, but brother. Also mentions His sisters.


24 posted on 05/31/2014 5:23:26 PM PDT by SkyDancer (If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: narses

Limbo by Sister Mary Ada, OSJ

The ancient grayness shifted
Suddenly and thinned
Like mist upon the moors Before a wind.
An old, old prophet lifted
A shining face and said:
“He will be coming soon.
The Son of God is dead;
He died this afternoon.”

A murmurous excitement stirred
All souls.
They wondered if they dreamed –
Save one old man who seemed
Not even to have heard.

And Moses, standing,
Hushed them all to ask
If any had a welcome song prepared.
If not, would David take the task?
And if they cared
Could not the three young children sing
The Benedicite, the canticle of praise
They made when God kept them from perishing
In the fiery blaze?

A breath of spring surprised them,
Stilling Moses’ words.
No one could speak, remembering
The first fresh flowers,
The little singing birds.
Still others thought of fields new ploughed
Or apple trees
All blossom-boughed.
Or some, the way a dried bed fills
With water
Laughing down green hills.
The fisherfolk dreamed of the foam
On bright blue seas.
The one old man who had not stirred
Remembered home.

And there He was
Splendid as the morning sun and fair
As only God is fair.
And they, confused with joy,
Knelt to adore
Seeing that He wore Five crimson stars
He never had before.

No canticle at all was sung
None toned a psalm, or raised a greeting song,
A silent man alone
Of all that throng
Found tongue
– Not any other.
Close to His heart
When the embrace was done,
Old Joseph said,
“How is Your Mother,
How is Your Mother, Son?”


25 posted on 05/31/2014 5:29:03 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

You just can’t refrain from the name calling. What, are you 12? I will not participate in discussions with you. Have a good night.


26 posted on 05/31/2014 5:30:02 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: narses
You seem hung up an the sex ACT itself. Why?

I would suggest you go back and re-read your thread title. Then you might discover who is really hung up on the 'sex act'.

I happen to believe that the 'sex act' was created by God as a way for a husband and wife to celebrate their covenant with each other and God. There is nothing wrong or dirty or unpure about it. It is what God intended.

27 posted on 05/31/2014 5:31:57 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: equalator

You beat me to it. In verse 20, the angel of the Lord says, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife”.


28 posted on 05/31/2014 5:35:33 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

It’s not written in English either.


29 posted on 05/31/2014 5:40:00 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: narses; ealgeone
... I accept the Church view and reject the heretical proddie view.

That is why the Roman Catholics will follow their cult into the jaws of hell!

They call Scripture quotes heretical and use derisive language to define those who believe the Scripture unto Salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ, as led by His Holy Spirit!

Cults always declare they hold the truth, but rat poison is 90% food, and 10% poison that kills!


30 posted on 05/31/2014 5:40:07 PM PDT by WVKayaker ("Every American should feel outrage at any injustice done to our veterans " -Sarah Palin 5/26/14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GJones2
Might as well post the whole thing:

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

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 1:19-25

Note also how it refers to Jesus specifically as Mary's "firstborn" - not 'only born'.

31 posted on 05/31/2014 5:41:12 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GJones2

Exodus 13:13
“Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.”

So are we saying we know the firstborn donkey had brother and sister donkeys?? Or was that how the language was used?

” The “first-born of the poor” signifies the most miserable of the poor ( Isaiah 14:30 ). The “church of the first-born” signifies the church of the redeemed.

The destruction of the first-born was the last of the ten plagues inflicted on the Egyptians ( Exodus 11:1-8 ; Exodus 12:29 Exodus 12:30 ). “

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/first-born/

Maybe First-Born has a rather expanded meaning.


32 posted on 05/31/2014 5:44:20 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Yeah it kind of blows away the whole argument. This is why we can’t have nice things, guys.


33 posted on 05/31/2014 5:44:30 PM PDT by equalator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: equalator
The key part of that phrase is "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS -Matthew 1:25 " The clear meaning of this scripture speaks for itself. Anyone that believes that Mary and Joseph somehow remained celibate for years and years have the burden of proof (not the other way around). In fact we are explictly warned not to make up scripture.
34 posted on 05/31/2014 5:44:58 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain; narses
This in no way impugns the nature of Jesus, or Mary.

Exactly. The angel was very clear in calling Mary most blessed among women. I don't believe that being a wife to her husband took anything away from that.

35 posted on 05/31/2014 5:45:12 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

*sigh* You know it’s we Jews that brought Christianity to the world. And we we’ve been tormented, abused and murdered over the centuries for it. I don’t care what you believe about what you believe, be it in any language you prefer. If Mathews writes that James was the brother of Yashua then he was the brother. You can interpret that any way you wish it doesn’t alter the fact.


36 posted on 05/31/2014 5:49:02 PM PDT by SkyDancer (If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: narses; pastorbillrandles
Only sinners need a savior, this is why the Magnificat is so important for some Catholics (those who want to impute some weird, sinless state upon Mary) to understand that Mary knew her son was also her “Savior” who was to take away her sin as well as the sins of the world.

Also, in Hebrew culture, Joseph and Mary were considered “married” when they were betrothed and were allowed conjugal visits before they actually lived together as man and wife.

This is why Joseph considered “divorce” when he found out Mary was with child. Because Joseph knew he had not slept with Mary, God sent an angel to tell him of what had happened and to warn him to take the child to Egypt, as the Lord knew many were already looking for the coming Messiah.

This quirk of Hebrew law about couples sleeping together also was the reason no one questioned Mary's pregnancy as anything out of the ordinary (though her sister in law Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, obviously knew something was up when her baby leapt in her womb when Mary came near.)

Finally, Mary was in the upper room at Pentecost.

This showed that she knew

1. that she was a sinner just as the rest of us

and

2. She understood that the Old Covenant had passed away with the tearing of the Temple Curtain before the Holiest of Holies when her Son died on the Cross nearby at Calvary.. Mary understood her life and her Son were the sign of the coming Messianic Age of the New Covenant.

Mary knew that she needed to await the infilling of the Holy Spirit, as the Old Covenant was over, and so she awaited the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises of Pentecost — as Peter quoted the Jewish Prophet Joel:

“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions:

For Peter to have full understanding of why Joel's prophecy was happening that day at Pentecost meant that Peter had overcome all of his troubling experiences with the Lord, when the Lord was on earth.

Right after Jesus commended Peter for saying He was the Christ (flesh and blood hath not revealed that to you, but the Father in Heaven) Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for being a mouthpiece of Satan.

This was because Peter was thinking it was not good for Jesus to go to the Cross, and Jesus rightly saw that Satan was making Peter think like a man in the flesh, not the way the Father would think.

At Pentecost, Peter understood it all, why Jesus rebuked him as he spoke for Satan (BTW, there goes the idea that Peter was the first “pope” as he was obviously not infallible!) and understood that the Cross was at the apex of all history. Peter as well as Mary understood that they had been part of the transitioning of Old Covenant to the New Covenant and looked forward to that Messianic Age when instead of men having to be outwardly conformed to the Law, “the Lord would write the Law on their hearts”.

Mary's presence in the upper room with the disciples signifies much more than we realize. It is so cool!

37 posted on 05/31/2014 5:49:34 PM PDT by Sontagged (Faith without works is dead. This also means incessant prayer without attendant works is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Exactly. The angel was very clear in calling Mary most blessed among women. I don't believe that being a wife to her husband took anything away from that.

I would think so, Luke 1:48, "all generations shall call me (Mary) blessed".

38 posted on 05/31/2014 5:52:30 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: narses

The Canticle of Mary, Luke 1:48 etc. really does tell all, “All Generations Will Call Me Blessed”, yes, so all religions that purport to be Christian should but they simply don’t unless once caught out on this issue, grudgingly acknowledge it.


39 posted on 05/31/2014 5:56:49 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: equalator
The key part of that phrase is "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS -Matthew 1:25 "

The clear meaning of this scripture speaks for itself. Anyone that wishes to persuade people that Mary and Joseph remained celibate for years and years have the burden of proof (not the other way around). In fact we are explictly warned not to make up scripture.

40 posted on 05/31/2014 5:56:57 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: narses

Does the RCC believe that sex within a marriage covenant makes you unrighteous?


41 posted on 05/31/2014 5:58:16 PM PDT by Kandy Atz ("Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Break out your Bibles and study the messianic Psalms.
The words of Jesus prophesized 1,000 years before Christ

Psalm 69 8

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.


42 posted on 05/31/2014 6:01:55 PM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Since it was accepted truth for the first aeon and a half of the Christian Era that Mary was a Virgin

What a coincidence! That was the exact same aeon and a half where the Church prevented the Bible from getting into the hands of the common Christian.

43 posted on 05/31/2014 6:05:36 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: winodog
with God the Father. Now verse 8:

Psalms 69:8

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, (His fellow Jews) and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Now there’s one group of people that don’t like that verse. And who are they?

Well, the Roman Catholics are just exercised by the thought that Jesus had physical brothers. Yes, Mary and Joseph had sons beyond Christ. She was just a human mother. She wasn’t the mother of God. She was the mother of human beings. So here is a good verse to show these people. That He is “an alien unto my mother’s (Mary’s) children.”

Now stop and think. When did the family of Joseph and Mary recognize and believe who Jesus was? Not until after, I think, His crucifixion. Hey, they detested Him just as much as anybody else in Nazareth for the longest time. But I think they finally came to believe that He was who He said He was. So it’s evident that Joseph and Mary had other children after Christ was born (Matthew 13:55-56). All right, read it again.

Psalms 69:8-9

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, (His fellow Jews. His family) and an alien (He was a castoff.) unto my mother’s children. (Who would have been His physical brothers. Half brothers!) 9. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” In other words, all the anger of Israel in rebellion against the Grace of God—they heaped on Him with their scorn and their ridicule and their demand in that He be crucified.

Psalms 69:10-11

“When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. 11. I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.” Now what’s He referring to? Did He walk up and down the streets and highways of Israel in the apparel of the kings and queens? NO! But what? As almost one who had nothing.

And I think He put it best when He said that birds have nests and animals have dens but He does not have a place to lay His head. See, He was absolutely the poorest of the poor from the physical aspect, so that no one could use that as an excuse for rejecting Him. He was right on their level, and yet, they hated Him. Verse 11 again:
http://lesfeldick.org/lesbk79.html

44 posted on 05/31/2014 6:08:34 PM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

> “Maybe First-Born has a rather expanded meaning.” <

Someone else alluded to ‘firstborn’. I haven’t investigated that. My comments concerned a different part of the passage.


45 posted on 05/31/2014 6:13:45 PM PDT by GJones2 (Mary a virgin throughout her marriage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: narses; Hoodat

“How does that question pop into the discussion?”

Mary and Joseph were married, but hew never copulated with her? That is a bunch of baldersash!


46 posted on 05/31/2014 6:16:03 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bike800
Woman, there is your son...son, there is your mother. And from then on, John took her into his care. Wouldn’t have been necessary if she had sons to take care her...

Concur, that is scriptural evidence

47 posted on 05/31/2014 6:16:39 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: narses

“Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way.”

This is a deliberately deceptive statement. Paul normally uses ‘brother’ to mean the spiritual brother, and that in turn does not mean the spiritual cousin. Here is a sample of his use of brother:

Rom 14:10
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Rom 14:15
For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Rom 14:21
It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

Rom 16:23
Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother.

1Co 1:1
Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

When discussing our brothers in Christ, Paul was a monotheist. In John we read, “ But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...”

It is in this sense Paul usually uses “brother”. If we have ONE father, then we are “brothers”. If we have multiple fathers but are related, we are “cousins”. Thus Paul’s use is that of brother, not cousin - the sons of one father!

Dave Armstrong’s statement is deliberately misleading. If you want to know the truth, seek it in scripture rather than getting it second hand from someone who does not honor the truth.


48 posted on 05/31/2014 6:17:05 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winodog

Since Psalm 69:5 reads:

“5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee”

Are you also contending that Jesus sinned?


49 posted on 05/31/2014 6:23:52 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

So it wasn’t a big deal that Mary bore the Sacred Son of God and Salvation to all mankind?


50 posted on 05/31/2014 6:25:11 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson