Ever Virgin???
-
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:Originally posted by Honeybunz:All Prots fathers were Catholics and even after founding new churches, their understanding of Mariology still remained.
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."
Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Protestants do not even obey thier Reformers....they are truly above all in thier intepretations. -
I agree and so does Martin Luther exegis of this verse.Originally posted by vince69:Actually, No, you can infer it to be so, but cannot conclude it.
reason being, all this verse said is that Joseph did not have sexual relation with Mary till the day she gave birth to Jesus, the first born.
Now, whether or not they have sexual relation after that, can only be a guess, ie, not necessary that they will have.
cheers
-
Why do modern day protestant believe Mary had sexual relations when it is not mentioned in Scripture explicitly? Isnt there a double standard employed here by advocates of Sola Scriptura?
Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, how can she have 2 spouse??? Can others enter through the same gate which the Saviour did? Can others be borned from the Ark? It makes no logical sense!!! -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
The attractiveness of the "ever virgin" theory lies in the fact that most people prefer to marry virgin women as their wives. Thus it would seem "morally correct" that Mary as the "wife" of the Holy Spirit is a virgin. This is blasphemy as it suggest that the Holy Spirit is bound by human desires, had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus, then gave his "wife" away to another man to co-habit together.
Why do modern day protestant believe Mary had sexual relations when it is not mentioned in Scripture explicitly? Isnt there a double standard employed here by advocates of Sola Scriptura?
Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, how can she have 2 spouse??? Can others enter through the same gate which the Saviour did? Can others be borned from the Ark? It makes no logical sense!!!
Heed the warning of Jesus...if you choose to ignore the plain text of the bible and confine the power of God to human terms then you are wrong.Matthew 22:29 ESV
Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit because she is Joseph's wife as commanded by God. As Joseph's wife it is lawful for her to have sex with Joseph. All three texts below support each other clearly without having to twist the meaning of the words.
But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
i.e
changing the meaning of "until"
(This is very clear-cut, no matter how John Salza plays with the word the meaning still remains the same)
changing the meaning of "brothers" to "cousins"
(Why would Jesus' mother and Jesus' cousins be mentioned in the same breath? Doesn't Jesus' cousins have their own mothers?)Matthew 1:20 ESV
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.Matthew 1:24-25 ESV
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.Matthew 12:46 ESV
[ Jesus' Mother and Brothers ] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. -
Agree.Originally posted by Skibi:Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit because she is Joseph's wife as commanded by God. As Joseph's wife it is lawful for her to have sex with Joseph. All three texts below support each other clearly without having to twist the meaning of the words.
i.e
changing the meaning of "until"
(This is very clear-cut, no matter how John Salza plays with the word the meaning still remains the same)
changing the meaning of "brothers" to "cousins"
(Why would Jesus' mother and Jesus' cousins be mentioned in the same breath? Doesn't Jesus' cousins have their own mothers?)
Christianity simply has too many pagan elements. The spouse of Holy Spirit reminds us of Zeus and his affairs on Earth.
No reason for Mary to be mentioned with her nephews also. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
This does not prove anything. John Salza is shooting himself in the foot, thinking to confuse us with his command of English. Because "did not...until after" and "not up to the point that" mean exactly the same thing.
And ur exegis of Scripture is flawed. Apologist John Salza uses Greek to explain why.
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":
Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.
Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.
Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.
1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.
Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.
Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.
Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."
2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.
1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.
Consider...
Using "did not...until after",
Matthew 1:25 NIV
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Joseph did not know Mary(sexually) until after Mary had given birth to a son.
Using "not up to the point that",
Joseph knew Mary(sexually) not up to the point that Mary gave birth to a son. (direct substitution in line with John Salza's examples - sounds grammatically wrong, but the meaning is correct)
Note that if we add a comma to break up the sentence it becomes more palatable linguistically speaking.
Joseph knew Mary(sexually) not, up to the point that Mary gave birth to a son.
Now to show how cunning John Salza is.... If we had not compared like and like as shown above, but attempted to correct the grammatical error subconciously. The sentence would look like this... i.e adding an additional "did not" by mistake to "not up to the point that" to make it "did not...not up to the point that"
Using wrongly "did not...not up to the point that",
Joseph did not have sex with Mary not up to the point that Mary had given birth to a son.
Here there are two "not"s in the same sentence which "sounds" correct, but actually have no real meaning. -
*faints*
*went to find an English teacher* -
The same quote in almost every thread.
This is tiring... -
So John Salza is wrong...then i suppose John Calvin and Martin Luther (since u are rpotestant, i quote ur reformers) are wrong as well in thier intepretation of Matthew 1:25
Martin Luther:
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
John Calvin:
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) } -
skibi is not protestant, neither am I.
-
Skibi is.Originally posted by Icemoon:skibi is not protestant, neither am I.
U on the otherhand hold the Reformers exegis of Scripture at the highest value. If the Reformers and Church Fathers exegis of Scripture are the same, why do you go against it.
U must get behind the Greek to understand it fully.
And to Skibi: It is you who hold the english meaning of the word brother instead of the hebrew meaning. And Yes, the 4 'brothers' mother is Mary of Clopas.
Now we have four 'brothers', JAMES, JO'SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3...
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES."
So this shows James and co are Mary's Sister sons hence Jesus' cousins which is why they are Brothers of the Lord.
But Skibi, cant read Scripture i suppose. The fallacy of modern day protestantism.
I too can play wif words, Why in Scripture, is Jesus refered to THE son of Mary and not A son of Mary? Or why was Mary surprised when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child (if she was not consecrated a virgin)? -
The protestants here say Skibi is his own theologian.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Skibi is.
U on the otherhand hold the Reformers exegis of Scripture at the highest value. If the Reformers and Church Fathers exegis of Scripture are the same, why do you go against it.
Actually you haven't show me how the Reformers exegete the Scripture to show the perpetual virginity of Mary. -
Nothing wrong with the English.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I too can play wif words, Why in Scripture, is Jesus refered to THE son of Mary and not A son of Mary? Or why was Mary surprised when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child (if she was not consecrated a virgin)?
Scripture didn't say Jesus is THE ONLY son of Mary. Only that He is THE ONLY Son of God.
'THE' is emphasizing the importance of that son. Or just a plain usage of the definite article in grammer.
If Mary was consecrated a virgin .. it begs the question why was she married to Joseph?
Jewish custom views marriage as kiddushin, a very holy affair. Marital relations is encouraged and it is said that God dwells in the master bedroom. Why wed a wife who is consecrated?
Might as well get a servant girl if you just want people to clean your house. -
Joseph was meant to protect her.Originally posted by Icemoon:Nothing wrong with the English.
Scripture didn't say Jesus is THE ONLY son of Mary. Only that He is THE ONLY Son of God.
'THE' is emphasizing the importance of that son. Or just a plain usage of the definite article in grammer.
If Mary was consecrated a virgin .. it begs the question why was she married to Joseph?
Jewish custom views marriage as kiddushin, a very holy affair. Marital relations is encouraged and it is said that God dwells in the master bedroom. Why wed a wife who is consecrated?
Might as well get a servant girl if you just want people to clean your house.However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of JesusÂ’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
On the contrarty, I have shown u the reformers exegis of Matthew 1:25 which many Protestants here are hyping about.
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard MaryÂ’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
JOHN CALVIN --
"There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!
"For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....
"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71)
"And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
"We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)
Thus saith MARTIN LUTHER --
"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THAT." (LUTHER'S WORKS 22, 23)
[Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life]
"...A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it." (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)
Didymus the Blind (Church Father)
"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]). -
Protect her need to marry her?
Cannot be siblings meh? Joseph is old enough to be her father (I suspect), he can even adopt her as daughter.
Your reasoning is using the argument from silence. I can also say, if Joseph had other children, why were they not mentioned during the birth of Jesus?
Even more strange .. the other children are not mentioned at all in any of the gospel narratives! James, Jude etc. happens to be the cousins of Jesus, not his half-siblings!
Matthew 1 cannot prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please show from Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary. -
Haha, he's going to draw out the Oral Tradition liao.Originally posted by Icemoon:Protect her need to marry her?
Cannot be siblings meh? Joseph is old enough to be her father (I suspect), he can even adopt her as daughter.
Your reasoning is using the argument from silence. I can also say, if Joseph had other children, why were they not mentioned during the birth of Jesus?
Even more strange .. the other children are not mentioned at all in any of the gospel narratives! James, Jude etc. happens to be the cousins of Jesus, not his half-siblings!
Matthew 1 cannot prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please show from Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Be prepared. -
Is this how a protector or guardian would behave?
Matthew 1
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Shouldn't the first instinct be to find out who is the father? Remember the story of Dinah in the Old Testament?
Actually the passage also very strange. They not even married how to divorce! -
Its the jewish way...dont ask me.Originally posted by Icemoon:Protect her need to marry her?
Cannot be siblings meh? Joseph is old enough to be her father (I suspect), he can even adopt her as daughter.
Your reasoning is using the argument from silence. I can also say, if Joseph had other children, why were they not mentioned during the birth of Jesus?
Even more strange .. the other children are not mentioned at all in any of the gospel narratives! James, Jude etc. happens to be the cousins of Jesus, not his half-siblings!
Matthew 1 cannot prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. Please show from Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Joseph is not even mentioned so why should his children??? His children would not even share His blood unlike his cousins. Mary, wife of Clopas is his biological aunt.
1) Explain to me Luke 1:31-34.....why was Mary shocked when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child.
2) When they were searching for him in the Temple, why is there no siblings???
3) John 19: Why would Christ commit his Mother to his Apostles instead of his brothers? That goes contrary to Jewish Laws.
Show me in Scripture, where it says Mary, the Ark, had sexual relations? If not, I shall fall back to Tradition.
Why do Protestants go against thier Reformers??? -
If we read the bible with a thinking mind, we will know certain passages are not very credible and their authenticity should be questioned. In other words, they could be the insertion of scribes into the originals.
For example, the famous account of the stoning of the woman in adultery. Why didn't any of you ask - here is the woman, where is the man? -
Even Muslims hold the perputual virginity.
I cant see any arguments against it.
Scripture, Church Fathers, Non-Inspired writings, Protestant Reformers, Quran...........
vs
20th Century Protestant Fundamentalist (who believe God puts fossils to test people faith in Genesis) -
It has been shown the Christian scribes do not understand the Jewish way very well. For example, the Apostle Paul misquoted the Old Testament to further his agenda. The gospel authors insert in the Joseph character to link Jesus back to King David. And many more.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Its the jewish way...dont ask me.
Joseph is not even mentioned so why should his children??? His children would not even share His blood unlike his cousins. Mary, wife of Clopas is his biological aunt.
1) Explain to me Luke 1:31-34.....why was Mary shocked when the Angel said she WILL concieve a child.
2) When they were searching for him in the Temple, why is there no siblings???
3) John 19: Why would Christ commit his Mother to his Apostles instead of his brothers? That goes contrary to Jewish Laws.
Show me in Scripture, where it says Mary, the Ark, had sexual relations? If not, I shall fall back to Tradition.
Why do Protestants go against thier Reformers???
The Jewish view is that marriage is a sacred and holy affair. You can say sex is at the top of their priority. Remember the story of Onan?
Joseph not mentioned but Jesus mentioned right? If, going by the Christian argument, Jesus can inherit the bloodline of Joseph even when he has absolutely no blood relations with Joseph, then what's more for the relationship between Jesus and His half siblings?
Why would cousins from his mother's side be *closer* than his half siblings? Remember, the bloodline of Mary is unimportant as they are a patriarchial society. Furthermore, the cousins have no reason to be associated with their aunt and cousin Jesus, because their own parents are still alive!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gospel authors didn't even try to associate Jesus with his true cousin John the Baptist later on! John the Baptist was NOT labelled as a brother of Jesus!! I think they didn't even bother to label him as a cousin.
1). She was a virgin. If she was a consecrated virgin, please explain to me why the Matthew and Luke ommitted that? Is it very hard to add in the Greek for consecrated?
2). Similarly, where were the children of Joseph when Jesus was born?
3). Actually Jesus only commit His mother to the Apostle John. Why is it contrary to Jewish law? If John is now the adopted son of Mary and Mary becomes his adopted mother?
Neither can you show me Mary DID NOT have sexual relations.
The knockdown argument is - if Mary is indeed a consecrated virgin, Scipture would have said that.
-
The Jews don't .. for a very good reason.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Even Muslims hold the perputual virginity.
I cant see any arguments against it.
Scripture, Church Fathers, Non-Inspired writings, Protestant Reformers, Quran...........
vs
20th Century Protestant Fundamentalist (who believe God puts fossils to test people faith in Genesis)
Remember before you have Christians, the Jews were already there. -
Explain to me L:uke 1:31-34 then. Thats sufficient scripturial proof on her consecration.Originally posted by Icemoon:It has been shown the Christian scribes do not understand the Jewish way very well. For example, the Apostle Paul misquoted the Old Testament to further his agenda. The gospel authors insert in the Joseph character to link Jesus back to King David. And many more.
The Jewish view is that marriage is a sacred and holy affair. You can say sex is at the top of their priority. Remember the story of Onan?
Joseph not mentioned but Jesus mentioned right? If, going by the Christian argument, Jesus can inherit the bloodline of Joseph even when he has absolutely no blood relations with Joseph, then what's more for the relationship between Jesus and His half siblings?
Why would cousins from his mother's side be *closer* than his half siblings? Remember, the bloodline of Mary is unimportant as they are a patriarchial society. Furthermore, the cousins have no reason to be associated with their aunt and cousin Jesus, because their own parents are still alive!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gospel authors didn't even try to associate Jesus with his true cousin John the Baptist later on! John the Baptist was NOT labelled as a brother of Jesus!! I think they didn't even bother to label him as a cousin.
1). She was a virgin. If she was a consecrated virgin, please explain to me why the Matthew and Luke ommitted that? Is it very hard to add in the Greek for consecrated?
2). Similarly, where were the children of Joseph when Jesus was born?
3). Actually Jesus only commit His mother to the Apostle John. Why is it contrary to Jewish law? If John is now the adopted son of Mary and Mary becomes his adopted mother?
Neither can you show me Mary DID NOT have sexual relations.
The knockdown argument is - if Mary is indeed a consecrated virgin, Scipture would have said that. -
It is like what the text said - she was still a virgin.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Explain to me L:uke 1:31-34 then. Thats sufficient scripturial proof on her consecration.
I don't consider that sufficient proof. Suggestive, maybe.
Anyway the virgin birth *could* be an insertion by the original author because the earliest Christian writings are silent on it. Thus, there is no need to kill your brain cells over this.
Just take it by faith. -
By the Gospel of James support it...its quite early right?Originally posted by Icemoon:It is like what the text said - she was still a virgin.
I don't consider that sufficient proof. Suggestive, maybe.
Anyway the virgin birth *could* be an insertion by the original author because the earliest Christian writings are silent on it. Thus, there is no need to kill your brain cells over this.
Just take it by faith.
31
Behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
34
But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
The angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all!!!