Perpetual Virgin?

[Atemi]

It is no incoherent to speak of Mary and the cousins of Jesus, and referring to them as "brothers".

It is incoherent because you just made that up.

The Holy Spirit did NOT say those men were Jesus' cousins but were referred to as His "brothers." You totally manufactured that because you refuse to believe what the Holy Spirit did say.

 

[Atemi]

The plain reading of scripture would suggest Mary is His real mother. The brothers are His actual brothers.

Any and all people not looking through the later arriving Catholic false doctrine lens would believe exactly that when reading the text....because the context determines as such.

The writers of the texts KNEW that, and that why they wrote it the way they did. Obviously, the writers were most definitely not Roman Catholics.

 

[Buzzard]

and Lifein says

Maybe you should explain why it is so important that Mary had more children?

LifeIn said:
Maybe you should explain why it is so important that Mary had more children?

===========================

because it is
"Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms"
that speak of him
and David says
Ps. 69:8
I am become a stranger unto my brethren,
and an alien unto my mother's children.

For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;
and the reproaches of them that reproached thee
are fallen upon me.
Jn.2:17
And his disciples remembered that it was written,
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

David also says this
"and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

-------------------Posters---------------

Lk.24:25​

Then he said unto them,​

O fools, and slow of heart to believe​

all that the prophets have spoken:​

​

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,​

and to enter into his glory?​

​

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,​

he expounded unto them in all the scriptures​

the things concerning himself.​

if Christ did not fufill all that was written of him
------brothers 4 and sisters 3, ---
would be part of
"That which was written of him"
then the Apostles were badly mistaken
Mary and Joseph, with a little help from
Zacharias, Elisabeth, and John the Baptist
"Hookus-Pookus-Flippity- Flam"
pulled off the greatest "Hochx" in history
probably with a little help from Peter
.

Judges 9:15​

And the bramble said unto the trees,​

If in truth ye anoint me king over you,​

then come and put your trust in my shadow:​

and if not,​

let fire come out of the bramble,​

and devour the cedars of Lebanon.​

.​

Acts 5:15​

that ...the shadow of Peter passing by​

might overshadow some of them.​

===========================================
.
"Yea; Hath God said"
.
so why does Rome so vehemently deny,
the clear teaching of Scripture
"
I am become a stranger unto my brethren,
and an alien unto my mother's children."
===================================
.
"I come in my fathers name,
and ye receive me not,
if another comes in his own name
him ye will receive"
.
and he is coming, him and his Momma with him;
and ---- him ye will receive"

 

[4Him]

Maybe you should explain why it is so important that Mary had more children?

IOW, you have ZERO reasons she would remain a virgin. ZERO.

She was married and we are to be fruitful and multiply. Yet for some reason you think that doesn’t apply to Mary. You have her denying her own husband.

 

[balshan]

IOW, you have ZERO reasons she would remain a virgin. ZERO.

She was married and we are to be fruitful and multiply. Yet for some reason you think that doesn’t apply to Mary. You have her denying her own husband.

Yep, it is just wishful thinking.

For Mary having a normal marriage:

1. Said until - Matt 1:25

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

So after Jesus' birth she could have a normal passage.

2. Joseph and Mary were married which (as RCs should know) means they can consummate their marriage. In the Jewish marriage contract, consummating the marriage is written into it.

3. Mary cannot be sinless if she breaks one commandment. One of the early commandments was go forth and multiply.

Gen 1:28

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So many verses which tell people to go forth and be fruitful.

4. As RCs tell us Mary was blessed, scripture shows us for a married women children are a blessing.

Ps 113:9

He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the Lord!

Ps 127:3

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.

5. We are told in both- scripture and early historical records that Jesus had blood brothers. It is only wishful thinking that a rare meaning of the word adelphos means cousin was used. RCs have no evidence to support this view at all.

Matt 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31, Matt 13:56, John 7:1-10, acts 1:14, Gal 1:19

None of these passages use any other word that the Greek word for brother, never once is the word for cousins uses. This alone has meaning.

6. There is not one scriptural reasons why Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage. Not one.

7. We know what happened to Jesus siblings from christianity .com:

James - Hegesippus and Josephus both give an account of James death:

The leaders are beside themselves. They shout to the people, “Oh dear! The just man is confused himself!” and throw James down from that height. But he is not killed, so the leaders start stoning him.

There are other historians who tell us about Jesus' blood relatives and their contributions in the early church.

Now let us look at the case for the RCs:

1. The poj which is an untrustworthy book, that even lies about who the author is.
2. Wishful thinking.

I sure there are many more pros for Jesus to have had siblings. Please feel free to add to them.

7 points for a normal marriage and 2 against.

​

 

[LifeIn]

She was married and we are to be fruitful and multiply.

The instruction to be fruitful and multiply was given to mankind as a whole and is not a command to each individual to have as many kids as they can. It was more of a permission given by God than a command given by God.

Yet for some reason you think that doesn’t apply to Mary. You have her denying her own husband.

In saying "you have her denying her own husband" you assume that her husband was pressuring her for sex. You assume that without any evidence whatsoever. Given the dream that Joseph had about Mary and his abstinence from sex throughout Mary's pregnancy, it is reasonable that Joseph saw the holy purpose to which God had called Mary and would willingly continue to abstain thereafter. Judging from Joseph's early disappearance from the Gospel narratives it is likely he was much older than Mary, quite possibly a widower, perhaps even with children from a previous marriage (who also might be called Jesus's family, and maybe even "brother"). So a life of abstinence at that point in his life, especially for such a holy purpose, is not that strange. It is only in our sex-crazed society today that sex is seen as an absolute individual right that the behavior of Joseph may appear unreasonable. If you look back in history you will find many instances of deeply religious married couples who have decided mutually to dedicate their lives to the service of God and live chaste lives while married and supporting each other's mission through their marriage rather than raising children.

 

[4Him]

The instruction to be fruitful and multiply was given to mankind as a whole

Mary is part of mankind.

and is not a command to each individual to have as many kids as they can. It was more of a permission given by God than a command given by God.

It is a command....He didn't say 'you can be fruitful and multiply' He said 'BE fruitful and multiply.'

It's like you literally never picked up the bible and read it, much less understand it.

In saying "you have her denying her own husband" you assume that her husband was pressuring her for sex.

So that's how you look at the marital bed? The husband pressuring his own wife for sex? That's twisted.

You assume that without any evidence whatsoever.

Stop lying. I didn't assume anything of the sort....YOU DID. YOU brought up that foolishness.

Given the dream that Joseph had about Mary and his abstinence from sex throughout Mary's pregnancy, it is reasonable that Joseph saw the holy purpose to which God had called Mary and would willingly continue to abstain thereafter.

Utter nonsensical fairy tale. There was ZERO reason for them not to have normal marital relations as we are told to do.

Joseph simply refrained from sex with his wife until she gave birth to Jesus.

Nowhere in scripture is it even implied that Joseph would not or could not have sex with his own wife. Nowhere.

Judging from Joseph's early disappearance from the Gospel narratives it is likely he was much older than Mary,

No, it isn't. More fairy tales made up by your apostate church.

quite possibly a widower, perhaps even with children from a previous marriage

More nonsense.

So a life of abstinence at that point in his life, especially for such a holy purpose, is not that strange.

Yes, it is.

It is only in our sex-crazed society today that sex is seen as an absolute individual right that the behavior of Joseph may appear unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is to think that Mary would NOT have normal sexual relations with her own husband, denying him and not be fruitful and multiply as we are told to.

If you look back in history you will find many instances of deeply religious married couples who have decided mutually to dedicate their lives to the service of God and live chaste lives while married and supporting each other's mission through their marriage rather than raising children.

We are not do deny our spouse.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

 

[LifeIn]

Mary is part of mankind.

It is a command....He didn't say 'you can be fruitful and multiply' He said 'BE fruitful and multiply.'

Nonsense. Many people are unable to have children. Are they all disobeying God? Of course not. It is not a command to every individual. It was addressed the the collective of human beings. As long as someone is having children, the command is being fulfilled.

So that's how you look at the marital bed? The husband pressuring his own wife for sex? That's twisted.

That's what it looked like you were implying by "denying her husband".

Joseph simply refrained from sex with his wife until she gave birth to Jesus.

Why not? Did the angel instruct him to leave her alone? No, he chose to respect the holy service to which she was called and was privileged to be called upon by God to protect her and Jesus.

Nowhere in scripture is it even implied that Joseph would not or could not have sex with his own wife. Nowhere.

Except the verse you quote above where he would not have sex with her during her pregnancy.

What is unreasonable is to think that Mary would NOT have normal sexual relations with her own husband....

Who else has ever born the Christ? There is no "normal" when it comes to Mary. Her role was unique.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...

General instructions for general Christians. Jesus did not marry. Neither did Paul.

 

[4Him]

Nonsense.

That’s all you have.

Many people are unable to have children.

So what.

Are they all disobeying God? Of course not.

You are making up arguments. No one said they are.

It is not a command to every individual.

It is a command to the married.

It was addressed the the collective of human beings. As long as someone is having children, the command is being fulfilled.

COMMAND. You finally got something right.

That's what it looked like you were implying by "denying her husband".

Proof that your mind wandered into foolishness that wasn’t even implied.

Why not? Did the angel instruct him to leave her alone?

Maybe so. Maybe that’s why he waited until she gave birth.

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.

No, he chose to respect the holy service to which she was called and was privileged to be called upon by God to protect her and Jesus.

It’s the husbands job to protect his wife and child.

Except the verse you quote above where he would not have sex with her during her pregnancy.

It shows he didn’t have sex with her UNTIL she gave birth. Nothing there saying he wouldn’t or couldn’t have normal sexual relations with his wife. Nothing.

Who else has ever born the Christ? There is no "normal" when it comes to Mary. Her role was unique.

And? That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t or couldn’t have sex with her own husband.

General instructions for general Christians. Jesus did not marry. Neither did Paul.

Jesus came to die for our sins, not to marry. Paul chose celibacy. He wasn’t married. MARRIED couples are not to deny their spouse.

 

[LifeIn]

So what.

If the command was an individual command that all must follow then those that cannot have children are disobeying God. Is that what you are going with?

You are making up arguments. No one said they are.

If those couples are not disobeying God that proves that it is not an individual command.

It is a command to the married.

When God said "be fruitful and multiply", he did not say only married people are obligated to do it. And there was no institution of marriage. You are imagining an interpretation that fits your desired position that Mary would be disobeying God if she did not have more children after Jesus. It isn't true.

Maybe so. Maybe that’s why he waited until she gave birth.

And maybe it was Joseph's own decision.

It’s the husbands job to protect his wife and child.

This child was special and Joseph knew it. Joseph was satisfied with the role God has chosen for him and desired no other. That's why we revere him as a saint too.

 

[balshan]

If the command was an individual command that all must follow then those that cannot have children are disobeying God. Is that what you are going with?


If those couples are not disobeying God that proves that it is not an individual command.


When God said "be fruitful and multiply", he did not say only married people are obligated to do it. And there was no institution of marriage. You are imagining an interpretation that fits your desired position that Mary would be disobeying God if she did not have more children after Jesus. It isn't true.


And maybe it was Joseph's own decision.


This child was special and Joseph knew it. Joseph was satisfied with the role God has chosen for him and desired no other. That's why we revere him as a saint too.

I see you ignored my post 2625 where I showed 7 points that support Jesus having blood siblings and Mary not being a PV. There was nothing to prove otherwise except rarely the greek word for brother can mean cousin. That does not stand up against the pro arguments. You offer nothing at all to support the false doctrines of the RCC.

Centuries and all RC has is an unreliable word argument to support their views and the false book the poj.

 

[4Him]

If the command was an individual command that all must follow then those that cannot have children are disobeying God.

No, they aren't.

Is that what you are going with?

No, because that's YOUR silly argument. Being barren or impotent isn't a sin.

If those couples are not disobeying God that proves that it is not an individual command.

It's a command for those that are married, not 'individuals'. Adam and Eve were husband and wife.

When God said "be fruitful and multiply", he did not say only married people are obligated to do it.

Seriously? Is that the unchristian argument you want to go with?

Procreation is for MARRIAGE. I can't believe I have to tell this to a 'professing' christian.

Do you really want to argue the position that procreation isn't to be between a husband and wife?

And there was no institution of marriage.

So you once again show that you don't read scripture, much less understand it.

Adam and Eve were husband and wife.

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

You are imagining an interpretation that fits your desired position that Mary would be disobeying God if she did not have more children after Jesus. It isn't true.

She would have done as married couples are commanded, and that is to be fruitful and multiply.

And maybe it was Joseph's own decision.

Doubtful, since scripture clearly says he did as he was commanded.

This child was special and Joseph knew it.

And? That's supposed to mean that he could never have sex with his own wife?

Joseph was satisfied with the role God has chosen for him and desired no other.

Unscriptural nonsense. There is ZERO reason that Mary and Joseph would not or could not have normal sexual relations as we are told to do. I doubt Mary would deny her husband and I doubt her husband would deny her. The marriage bed is undefiled and Catholics hate the thought that Mary would have sex with her own husband, as if it would defile her.

That's why we revere him as a saint too.

All believers are saints.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

even the prominent protestant leaders taught on it from the bible.

Impossible, since the Bible never even HINTS about "Perpetual virginity". It's all a total LIE!!!! Not saying that some didn't believe the lie, only that it;s not Biblical.

B) She knew of her vow of virginity

Except that there IS NO "Vow of Virginity". Just another idiotic Roman Catholic LIE.

and the reason she could not understand how this will be accomplish without the involvement of a man. She was already engaged to Joseph. Why would she then be so surprised at being told she would conceive?

Because at that point, she'd never had sexual intercourse with Joseph, or anybody else. The Angel was specific that the event would be supernatural.

the Protoevangelium is where we get the tradition that Mary was consecrated for service in the temple as a young girl, which would mean a life of perpetual virginity. Mary’s being entrusted to Joseph was for the purpose of protecting her virginity.

This is the "Old Joseph" stupidity!!! If Jesus half Siblings were Joseph's kids from a previous marriage, why did JESUS read in the temple which would be the duty of the ELDEST SON in Joseph's absence.

 

[LifeIn]

Centuries and all RC has is an unreliable word argument to support their views and the false book the poj.

No church from the first two centuries, Catholic or otherwise, held that Mary definitely had more than one child. So don't try to make it a Catholic thing because it is so much more.

 

[LifeIn]

No, because that's YOUR silly argument. Being barren or impotent isn't a sin.

And neither is a couple deciding to live a chaste life a sin.

Procreation is for MARRIAGE.

But you are arguing that marriage is only for procreation.

She would have done as married couples are commanded,

They aren't. And if you think they are, then tell me this: How many children are they "commanded" to have? Is one enough? Or must they have 2 or 3 or 10 or whatever? Face it. It is not a command to have more than one child.

And? That's supposed to mean that he could never have sex with his own wife?

If it was his and Mary's choice, which it was.

I doubt Mary would deny her husband and I doubt her husband would deny her.

Neither of them would be denying the other if it was a mutual decision.

 

[Atemi]

I doubt Mary would deny her husband and I doubt her husband would deny her.

Neither of them would be denying the other if it was a mutual decision.

"IF": the foundation of Roman Catholicism

 

[balshan]

No church from the first two centuries, Catholic or otherwise, held that Mary definitely had more than one child. So don't try to make it a Catholic thing because it is so much more.

Strange that you deny it is a RC thing, when Rcs like to brag how they were the only church for centuries. Make up your mind. Still doesn't change the fact that it is a lie with no reliable support and comes from the lying book the POJ. So just another attack on me from an RC who is unable to defend their false belief.

 

[balshan]

Well what we have is so many facts that support Mary having other children. This evidence comes from both scripture and historical documents. All the RCs have is the slim hope that brother meant cousin. Yet it was used in many verses to mean brother and not cousin. So that argument has no legs.

Their other source is the POJ, well we all know this does not stand up at all. It is very unreliable reference.

 

[LifeIn]

This evidence comes from both scripture and historical documents.

The Scripture and the historical documents are fine. It is your understanding of those documents that is in error. To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means".

 

[Atemi]

The Scripture and the historical documents are fine.

Yup. They are fine. They all teach that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and had other children.

It would take until the 3rd century after Christ to find the first person teaching that Mary never had sex....and he admitted he got that from what we now know is a fraud.