Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Soulx3]

Adam and Eve did not lose God's grace. If they had, they would have been sentenced to hell right then and there. God's grace was operating even then. He provided animal skins for clothing and allowed them to live. We have no reason to doubt Adam and Eve are in heaven today. It was grace that saved every OT believer. Salvation has always been by grace. It was not lost after the fall until Jesus.

After the disobedience of Adam and Eve, Heaven was closed to humanity. From then until Jesus's death, just souls who died went to Limbo where they awaited entry into Heaven. It was after Jesus died that He re-opened the gates of Heaven and was the first man to walk through, then He descended to the souls in Limbo and released them, including Adam and Eve, and they finally entered Heaven.

Mary did not "raise God." She and Joseph raised Jesus.

Jesus is in fact God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God."

Only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity?

We do have suggestions that she and Joseph had other children after Jesus.

Those believed to have been Jesus's half-siblings were actually the sons of His mother's spouse's brother, and thus were His cousins. I've shown why here.

By that logic, you can make up anything and say it's one of those things where the Bible lacks details. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest Mary took such a vow.

If you want to believe Mary was perfect and ever-virgin, be my guest but you can't support it from Scripture.

Of course anyone can make up anything, but you can't deny there are true details about people and events that are lacking in the writings that make up the Bible, yet those true details exist. Besides, it's not as if there's nothing to indicate or support in any of the writings that make up the Bible that Jesus's Mother is a perpetual virgin Who did/does not sin, because there is. If you need more direct evidence, there are writings from God that make up the multi-volume book The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V. In them, you'll read words from Jesus where He speaks about His Mother. The apostle John even said that if everything Jesus said and did was written, the entire world would not be able to contain the books that should be written. He's obviously speaking hyperbole, but his point remains clear. Our eternal God isn't and shouldn't be limited to any one book.

I can't make you recognize in any of the books that make up the Bible what supports the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity and having never sinned, just as I can't make you recognize the other writings I reference, such as from The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V, etc., that come from God as well. I can't know whether you will or never will recognize these truths as such, but I know you're capable.

 

[jas3]

Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. A belief that Mary was perpetually virgin has never been a part of the Gospel.

Well, that gets into the question of what exactly the Gospel is. It's certainly more involved than "salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior"; we have entire books of the New Testament that are "the Gospel" according to Matthew, "the Gospel" according to John, etc., and many, myself included, would say that in John's gospel, Jesus committing Mary into John's care indicated that it was not an option for her to be in the care of Joseph or one of Jesus's siblings; Joseph had died by that point and our Lord had no siblings.

Mary is barely mentioned after the Book of Acts.

So are most of the Twelve, that doesn't mean they weren't all important.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

After the disobedience of Adam and Eve, Heaven was closed to humanity. From then until Jesus's death, just souls who died went to Limbo where they awaited entry into Heaven. It was after Jesus died that He re-opened the gates of Heaven and was the first man to walk through, then He descended to the souls in Limbo and released them, including Adam and Eve, and they finally entered Heaven.

Actually, the OT saints went to a place called Sheol. Limbo is a Catholic invention. No such place exists in Scripture. Sheol, or "abode of the dead", was where everyone who died prior to Christ opening the gates of heaven went. It was divided into two parts. "Hades", for unbelievers, and "Abraham's Bosom" for believers. Enoch and Elijah were notable exceptions who were taken to heaven.
Jesus is in fact God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God."

Only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity?[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
You keep leaving Joseph out of the raising of Jesus. Why must Mary have been perfect to raise Jesus but not Joseph? He had an equal role in raising the young Jesus. It is your assumption that Mary had to be perfect to carry Jesus. Scripture is full of examples of God using broken people to do His will.

Those believed to have been Jesus's half-siblings were actually the sons of His mother's spouse's brother, and thus were His cousins. I've shown why here.

I did a whole write-up on the theory that they were who your posting said they were that I will have to try and find. However, the context is very telling. The towns people were struggling to believe that Jesus could be the Messiah because he grew up among them. They knew him and his family. The natural and obvious meaning is that they knew his parents and his siblings some of whom were named. They would be unlikely to reference cousins especially after naming both his parents. While the word used can refer to other than siblings, unless the context makes it clear the reference is to cousins, the assumption is that it is siblings. Coincidences in names among the many Marys does not prove these are cousins. I see no reason these are not a reference to his siblings. There is nothing in Scripture to lead me to believe otherwise and I don't think it diminishes who Mary was to have had other children. It is the presupposition that God Mary took a permanent vow of virginity and that God would not allow the womb that bore Jesus to bear other children that is driving you to seek alternative explanations other than the simple meaning of the text. I don't share your presupposition so I believe these are his siblings (half-siblings technically).

Of course anyone can make up anything, but you can't deny there are true details about people and events that are lacking in the writings that make up the Bible, yet those true details exist. Besides, it's not as if there's nothing to indicate or support in any of the writings that make up the Bible that Jesus's Mother is a perpetual virgin Who did/does not sin, because there is. If you need more direct evidence, there are writings from God that make up the multi-volume book The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V. In them, you'll read words from Jesus where He speaks about His Mother. The apostle John even said that if everything Jesus said and did was written, the entire world would not be able to contain the books that should be written. He's obviously speaking hyperbole, but his point remains clear. Our eternal God isn't and shouldn't be limited to any one book.

I can't make you recognize in any of the books that make up the Bible what supports the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity and having never sinned, just as I can't make you recognize the other writings I reference, such as from The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V, etc., that come from God as well. I can't know whether you will or never will recognize these truths as such, but I know you're capable.

The The Poem of the Man-God is not inspired and was once on the Catholic Church's list of banned books. It contains many theological and factual errors. Some mystics in the Catholic church like it but it is not considered an authoritative teaching. To say they are from God is to take a position even the Catholic church does not take.

We know Jesus said and taught things not recorded in Scripture however, that does not permit us to add to what Scripture contains. God revealed for us everything we need to know at this time. It is not for us to speculate whatever else Jesus might have taught. Furthermore, any such writings or teachings must agree with the revealed Scriptures as God does not contradict Himself.

I reject the claim that it was the Catholic church that gave us the canon of Scripture. The gathering that made that decision, was made before the Roman Catholic church was a recognized entity. They were well-known Christians of their day but not tied together in any ecclesiastical structure and most of the unique teachings of the Catholic church had not yet come to be. They largely agreed with earlier lists that predate the Catholic church by centuries. What we call the Catholic church today, did not exist until the 5th or 6th century. They claim to go back to Peter but that is a spurious claim without support.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Well, that gets into the question of what exactly the Gospel is. It's certainly more involved than "salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior"; we have entire books of the New Testament that are "the Gospel" according to Matthew, "the Gospel" according to John, etc., and many, myself included, would say that in John's gospel, Jesus committing Mary into John's care indicated that it was not an option for her to be in the care of Joseph or one of Jesus's siblings; Joseph had died by that point and our Lord had no siblings.

So are most of the Twelve, that doesn't mean they weren't all important.

While this is pure conjecture, I don't know that all of Jesus' siblings were believers at least not until after his resurrection. Mary had been a part of the disciples who followed Jesus and lived in community together. Jesus knew Mary would want to still be a part of that. He had left her to one of his siblings, it might have taken her away from that community. Instead of being with the disciples, she might have been living with one of her other children in some town but not with the disciples. John, being an Apostle, would be in the community and Jesus and John were very close. I think Jesus put Mary's spiritual care ahead of family ties.

Sometimes those closest to us are the last to believe. We are too familiar to them. Assuming Jesus did not show his divine abilities prior to Cana, his siblings might now have grasped who he was. To them, he was their brother. Very little was written for us about Jesus' childhood. Nothing though indicates he revealed who he was prior to the start of his public ministry. I suspect even Mary and Joseph did not fully grasp the reality of who Jesus was at first. They believed by faith but until Jesus began his public ministry, his miraculous abilities remained veiled. We know Joseph died sometime after Jesus was 12. Jesus no doubt could have healed him and prevented his death but that was not God's will. His powers remained veiled until it was time. We don't know who all Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, but perhaps his siblings were among them. That may have been the turning point of faith for them.

I don't think we can conclude as fact that Jesus had no siblings because he left Mary in John's care.

 

[Soulx3]

Actually, the OT saints went to a place called Sheol. Limbo is a Catholic invention. No such place exists in Scripture. Sheol, or "abode of the dead", was where everyone who died prior to Christ opening the gates of heaven went. It was divided into two parts. "Hades", for unbelievers, and "Abraham's Bosom" for believers.

Actually, "Limbo" and "Abraham's Bosom" are two names for the same place, just as "Hell" and "Sheol" are two names for the same place. After the disobedience of Adam and Eve, Heaven was closed to humanity, and, just souls who died went to Limbo (or Abraham's Bosom) where they awaited entry into Heaven. It was after Jesus died that He descended to the souls in Limbo (or Abraham's Bosom) and released them, including Adam and Eve, and He the Redeemer opened and entered the Gates of Heaven as the first man, followed by a procession of the redeemed.

You keep leaving Joseph out of the raising of Jesus. Why must Mary have been perfect to raise Jesus but not Joseph? He had an equal role in raising the young Jesus. It is your assumption that Mary had to be perfect to carry Jesus. Scripture is full of examples of God using broken people to do His will.

Joseph was indeed a just and holy man, which is why he was chosen to be the earthly spouse of Mary and father of Jesus. However, only Mary is so perfect as to be second to God. Jesus is God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God." Mary, not Joseph, conceived and carried God Incarnate. Now, only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity?

However, the context is very telling. The towns people were struggling to believe that Jesus could be the Messiah because he grew up among them. They knew him and his family. The natural and obvious meaning is that they knew his parents and his siblings some of whom were named. They would be unlikely to reference cousins especially after naming both his parents.

Nowhere in any writings from God are Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) called the sons of Joseph and Mary, but rather only Jesus is. That's because the four were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Joseph's brother), and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) who was Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law (Jn. 19:25), and were thus His cousins. I've provided the proof for this here.

The The Poem of the Man-God is not inspired and was once on the Catholic Church's list of banned books. It contains many theological and factual errors. Some mystics in the Catholic church like it but it is not considered an authoritative teaching. To say they are from God is to take a position even the Catholic church does not take.

I see you lazily failed to fact check what you read about The Poem of the Man-God. So, do you want to go and do a thorough research this time and come back with an accurate representation of Maria Valtorta and the Work, or do you want me to point out your errors for you?

We know Jesus said and taught things not recorded in Scripture however, that does not permit us to add to what Scripture contains.

False information shouldn't be added to truthful information. However, you cannot deny there is true information that exists about people and events that are lacking in the writings that make up the Bible, and you cannot forbid God from revealing it.

I reject the claim that it was the Catholic church that gave us the canon of Scripture. The gathering that made that decision, was made before the Roman Catholic church was a recognized entity. They were well-known Christians of their day but not tied together in any ecclesiastical structure and most of the unique teachings of the Catholic church had not yet come to be. They largely agreed with earlier lists that predate the Catholic church by centuries. What we call the Catholic church today, did not exist until the 5th or 6th century. They claim to go back to Peter but that is a spurious claim without support.

A history lesson is in order. I'll get back to this.

 

[Valletta]

You keep leaving Joseph out of the raising of Jesus. Why must Mary have been perfect to raise Jesus but not Joseph? He had an equal role in raising the young Jesus. It is your assumption that Mary had to be perfect to carry Jesus.

You say "must." God could have done anything He so chose. God "could" have required the Ark of the Covenant be made with rotted wood. Nor was God required to follow your requirement that both Mary and Joseph must be without sin, not just one. That Mary is without sin is shown with a deep understanding of the Bible.

I reject the claim that it was the Catholic church that gave us the canon of Scripture.

You can reject history and historians if you wish. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. While the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at mass, the readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed text for mass readings. A study of history will show that the Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. All Bibles in Europe contained the same 73 books until Protestants dropped books from their version during the reformation. Luther wanted more books dropped but was unsuccessful, for example, Revelation, much of which parallels the Catholic mass, remains.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You say "must." God could have done anything He so chose. God "could" have required the Ark of the Covenant be made with rotted wood. Nor was God required to follow your requirement that both Mary and Joseph must be without sin, not just one. That Mary is without sin is shown with a deep understanding of the Bible.



You can reject history and historians if you wish. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. While the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at mass, the readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed text for mass readings. A study of history will show that the Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. All Bibles in Europe contained the same 73 books until Protestants dropped books from their version during the reformation. Luther wanted more books dropped but was unsuccessful, for example, Revelation, much of which parallels the Catholic mass, remains.

I don't believe it requires a "deep understanding" of the Bible to conclude Mary is without sin. I believe it requires a presupposition read back into passages of the Bible to reach that conclusion. There is no clear teaching in the Bible that Mary was without sin nor any clear requirement. It also runs contrary to the Scriptural teaching that all have sinned and Mary calling God her savior. If Mary was indeed without sin she would have needed a Savior.

What we know of as the Catholic (or Roman Catholic) church today was an evolution. In the time of the Book of Acts, you had independent churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire. In time, the leading pastors in bigger cities became known as bishops. James, the half-brother of the Lord, was the bishop of Jerusalem. There was not yet any major ecclesiastical structure tying all the churches together. While Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope, there is nothing written about him functioning in such a role nor does he mention such a role in his own writings. The Gospel of Mark, written by the disciple Mark who traveled extensively with Peter and is believed to have gotten his account from Peter, does not even mention Jesus calling Peter "the rock". Of the four Gospels, only Matthew contains that part of the time when Peter made his profession of faith. Paul never mentions Peter in any leadership role in any of his epistles nor instructs the churches he plants to report to Peter. Eventually, when Constantine became Emporer, the bishop of Rome took on special significance because Rome was the capital of the empire and the bishop of Rome could easily consult with the Emporer. Later, when Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople, it created a rivalry between the church in Constantinople and the church in Rome that later led to a schism that exists to this day with the eastern church refusing to submit to the Pope in Rome despite their many similarities in doctrine. Eventually, the Catholic church tried to claim a lineage from Peter to the present but there is no historical evidence that such an unbroken chain existed. The central role of the bishop of Rome came centuries after the time of Peter.

Instead, we find independent churches scattered about but the leading pastors gaining prominence for their teachings and writings. It was such men called to meet and discuss the canon of Scripture. Much of what makes the Roman Catholic church unique was not yet doctrine. To say these men were Roman Catholics is to suggest such a church existed at that time when in fact it was just beginning to come into being. Eventually, with political clout from the Emporer, the Roman Catholic church began to emerge with the bishop of Rome as its head. I consider those early church fathers simple Christians of no particular church affiliation. Eventually, men within the Catholic church began to see abuses and false teachings and attempted to reform the church from within. Their efforts were rejected for which some gave their lives or faced imprisonment. This, we know, was the Protestant Reformation. Though these men started out Roman Catholic, they rejected the self-proclaimed authority of the RC church in favor of the teachings of Scripture.

I consider the canon of Scripture the product of the early Christian (not Catholic) church. If you want to call it catholic (lowercase 'c'), as in universal, I will agree with that but not Catholic as in the Roman Catholic church which came later. Catholics today want to claim that all the early church fathers were Roman Catholics when in fact no such church yet existed. Not all the early church fathers agreed with what would become Catholic doctrine. Protestants later rejected the Apocryphal books because they contained doctrinal errors and seem to have been adopted to support unique Catholic teachings.

 

[Valletta]

I don't believe it requires a "deep understanding" of the Bible to conclude Mary is without sin.

I consider the canon of Scripture the product of the early Christian (not Catholic) church. If you want to call it catholic (lowercase 'c'), as in universal, I will agree with that but not Catholic as in the Roman Catholic church which came later. Catholics today want to claim that all the early church fathers were Roman Catholics when in fact no such church yet existed. Not all the early church fathers agreed with what would become Catholic doctrine. Protestants later rejected the Apocryphal books because they contained doctrinal errors and seem to have been adopted to support unique Catholic teachings.

That's not what I said. I said if a person has a deep understanding of the Bible that person would conclude that Mary is without sin. There's a difference. The early Church fathers were part of the Catholic Church, east and west. Many centuries later there was a schism between east and west. Today the Latin Rite or Roman rite is the largest of the many rites. As to differences of opinion, the Apostles had differences of opinion as did Church Fathers as did Doctors of the Catholic Church. We are all unique human beings. They are called fathers and doctors not because they were perfectly in step with every thought, but because of their contributions to the understanding of God's Word. Due in part to these important contributions the Church on earth has a greater understanding of God's Word as time goes by.

There are no doctrinal errors in the dropped books. Where in the world did you get the idea that those books were adopted to support unique Catholic teaching? Do you have any historical support whatsoever to make such a statement? I've heard a similar attack on the Catholic grouping of the Ten Commandments, as if there was some conspiracy to deceive. The Christians involved in choosing the OT were doing their best to choose the books the Apostles taught from. Hebrews, for example, tells of those who were tortured for their belief in resurrection, and that story is only found in one place in the Bible--in Maccabees. I understand Jews might be anxious to distance themselves from that text but why Christians? Those Christians choosing the text for the Bible had no idea that books would be challenged a thousand or so years later, or which particular books might be challenged.

 

[jas3]

While this is pure conjecture, I don't know that all of Jesus' siblings were believers at least not until after his resurrection... Jesus knew Mary would want to still be a part of that. He had left her to one of his siblings, it might have taken her away from that community... I think Jesus put Mary's spiritual care ahead of family ties.

I suspect even Mary and Joseph did not fully grasp the reality of who Jesus was at first. They believed by faith but until Jesus began his public ministry, his miraculous abilities remained veiled... We don't know who all Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, but perhaps his siblings were among them. That may have been the turning point of faith for them.

I don't think we can conclude as fact that Jesus had no siblings because he left Mary in John's care.

Conjecture is fine as an intellectual exercise, but your explanation requires a lot of people to have specific motivations and experiences that aren't mentioned at all in Scripture. The explanation that Mary remained a virgin is much simpler.

I also have some questions about your reply to Valletta:

Of the four Gospels, only Matthew contains that part of the time when Peter made his profession of faith.

Assuming you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, why does that matter?

Instead, we find independent churches scattered about but the leading pastors gaining prominence for their teachings and writings. It was such men called to meet and discuss the canon of Scripture.

When, roughly, would you say this meeting happened?

I consider those early church fathers simple Christians of no particular church affiliation.

Then what do you make of their differentiation of themselves from the heretics by the use of the name "Catholic"? It seems to me that, while you can argue that " Catholic" in the first few centuries doesn't correspond to "Roman Catholic" today, the church fathers very much saw themselves as belonging to a specific "common unity," as they put it, where they shared one faith, and those who violated that faith were not considered part of the common unity.

Not all the early church fathers agreed with what would become Catholic doctrine.

Can you give an example of one who embraced the idea of independent churches led by pastors who rose to prominence through their teachings and writings?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Conjecture is fine as an intellectual exercise, but your explanation requires a lot of people to have specific motivations and experiences that aren't mentioned at all in Scripture. The explanation that Mary remained a virgin is much simpler.

I find it much simpler that Mary and Joseph had other children as mentioned in Scripture. You can argue they were cousins but the natural reading is that they were siblings.

I also have some questions about your reply to Valletta:

Assuming you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, why does that matter?

It doesn't prove anything but I find it interesting that Mark's gospel doesn't include that account. We know Mark got his account from Peter. It seems odd that Peter would not mention Jesus appointing him head of the church. Not to brag but to clearly communicate Jesus' intentions. Likewise, none of Peter's writings include mention of being appointed head of the church. We find no mention of it in the Book of Acts or in any of Paul's writings. Odd considering what an important appointment that would have been. Given that there are other ways to understand Jesus' words to Peter, I don't find it credible that Peter (and a supposed line of successors) is the head of God's church on earth. Peter might well have been the leader of the early church but there is nothing in Scripture about him having a successor or a line of successors.

When, roughly, would you say this meeting happened?

Then what do you make of their differentiation of themselves from the heretics by the use of the name "Catholic"? It seems to me that, while you can argue that " Catholic" in the first few centuries doesn't correspond to "Roman Catholic" today, the church fathers very much saw themselves as belonging to a specific "common unity," as they put it, where they shared one faith, and those who violated that faith were not considered part of the common unity.

Can you give an example of one who embraced the idea of independent churches led by pastors who rose to prominence through their teachings and writings?

The early church fathers indeed were part of a community. There was no ecclesiastical structure yet. They weren't appointed and did not report to a Pope. Usually, it was the local church that appointed their leaders. They did not agree on everything but like today differentiated between those beliefs essential to the faith and those where they could hold different opinions. In a previous post, I listed a long list of people who did not agree in the immaculate conception among the early church fathers. They didn't break fellowship over that but were not unified in that belief.

 

[Valletta]

I find it much simpler that Mary and Joseph had other children as mentioned in Scripture. You can argue they were cousins but the natural reading is that they were siblings.

False. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that says "that Mary and Joseph had other children." It's just not there.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

False. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that says "that Mary and Joseph had other children." It's just not there.

It is there. You just reject it saying the word used could refer to cousins (which does not prove it does in this case). The natural reading is that the townspeople in Nazareth, struggle to accept Jesus as the Messiah because they had watched him grow up. They knew his parents, his siblings, and it seemed ludicrous to them Jesus could be the Messiah. He did nothing special while growing up and there was nothing about his family that met their expectations of the family from which the Messiah would come. It is a strain to believe they would name his parents but then include cousins. The more natural understanding was that they were naming real siblings. It was the family they knew. You refuse to believe unless you have a verse that says "X, Y, and Z were the other children of Mary and Joseph." Yet the only reason to hold such a view is if you were already sold on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Since you believe that you have to find some other explanation when his siblings are mentioned. Your presupposition will not allow you to consider that these were his siblings.

There is also nothing in Scripture that says Mary remained a virgin or that Mary took a vow of celibacy. Mary was not instructed by God to remain a virgin. Having additional children would have been normal, natural, and holy. The Scriptures say children are a blessing from God and blessed is the man whose quiver is full. Why would God not want Jesus to have siblings? How would Mary having other children in any way diminish her or her holiness? It is human reason that says God would not let her have other children once her womb bore the Son of God. Scripture never says that. It only says that she was a virgin when the Holy Spirit made her with child. It says nothing about the rest of her life. To quote you, "It's just not there."

 

[Bobber]

Mary was more than just a good person, she was FULL of GRACE.
We are saved by grace, therefore if she is full of grace she is sinless,

You have nothing to demonstrate that. It's just a baseless assertion.

I am open to how she became full of grace but I have no doubt that she was sinless

Sorry but you are not open to how she became full of grace. You assert that it has to mean she was sinless? No reason to make such an assumption.

 

[jas3]

The early church fathers indeed were part of a community. There was no ecclesiastical structure yet.

The community was a set of local churches led by bishops who shared a common faith. I would hope we can agree that that's already a form of ecclesiastical structure that can't be described as "independent churches."

They weren't appointed and did not report to a Pope.

There's a wide gulf between having episcopal polity and bishops being appointed by and reporting to the Pope, as the Orthodox can tell you.

They did not agree on everything but like today differentiated between those beliefs essential to the faith and those where they could hold different opinions.

Can you find a single instance of a church father saying that Jesus had siblings? I don't think this was something they disagreed on.

 

[Soulx3]

I find it much simpler that Mary and Joseph had other children as mentioned in Scripture. You can argue they were cousins but the natural reading is that they were siblings.

The natural reading is what it says in the original language used. In Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi). This Koine Greek word has the following textbook definitions: "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman, or relative," etc. The context in these verses shows that its definition "kinsman, or relative” applies here, and it can refer to a range of different types of family members, e.g., siblings, cousins, nephews, or uncles, etc.

The evidence I provided here collectively shows that Jesus's kinsmen/relatives Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Joseph's brother), and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) who was Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law (Jn. 19:25), and were thus His cousins.

You don't have evidence like I do to support your case. All you're doing is assuming they were Jesus's half-siblings , which of course is much simpler to do, but it's also lazy and negligent, and an assumption is not proof.

 

[Valletta]

It is there. You just reject it saying the word used could refer to cousins (which does not prove it does in this case). The natural reading is that the townspeople in Nazareth, struggle to accept Jesus as the Messiah because they had watched him grow up. They knew his parents, his siblings, and it seemed ludicrous to them Jesus could be the Messiah. He did nothing special while growing up and there was nothing about his family that met their expectations of the family from which the Messiah would come. It is a strain to believe they would name his parents but then include cousins. The more natural understanding was that they were naming real siblings. It was the family they knew. You refuse to believe unless you have a verse that says "X, Y, and Z were the other children of Mary and Joseph." Yet the only reason to hold such a view is if you were already sold on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Since you believe that you have to find some other explanation when his siblings are mentioned. Your presupposition will not allow you to consider that these were his siblings.

There is also nothing in Scripture that says Mary remained a virgin or that Mary took a vow of celibacy. Mary was not instructed by God to remain a virgin. Having additional children would have been normal, natural, and holy. The Scriptures say children are a blessing from God and blessed is the man whose quiver is full. Why would God not want Jesus to have siblings? How would Mary having other children in any way diminish her or her holiness? It is human reason that says God would not let her have other children once her womb bore the Son of God. Scripture never says that. It only says that she was a virgin when the Holy Spirit made her with child. It says nothing about the rest of her life. To quote you, "It's just not there."

Again your statement that "that Mary and Joseph had other children as mentioned in Scripture" is false. The claim comes from your personal arguments as to what seems "ludicrous" and what is the "more natural understanding," but it is NOT "mentioned in Scripture."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

We can debate whether or not Mary and Joseph had other children. Even if they didn't, that doesn't prove Mary remained a virgin. She could have been unable to get pregnant which was not uncommon. We have stories in the OT of women begging God to end their barren state. Maybe Mary was unable to conceive after Jesus. While the siblings mentioned could have been cousins, they also could have been siblings. A lot of the names given were common names. Just look at all the Marys. I personally think the contexts favor the interpretation that these were actual siblings but you can disagree. Regardless, it does not prove Mary remained a virgin.

We have no record of her being commanded to remain a virgin. We have no record of her or her and Joseph taking a vow of celibacy. We are told that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she had given birth. While I understand the wording could allow for them never having had relations, why put it that way if you are trying to make the point that they vowed to stay celibate? You would much more likely make a plain statement that they vowed to keep Mary a virgin. The natural reading of that verse would suggest they put off sexual relations until after Jesus was born.

Historically, the belief that Mary remained a virgin came from outside the Bible. It was something a number of people believed must have been the case but not based on the clear teachings of Scripture. It fit their thinking and assumptions but it was not clearly taught in Scripture. They then went back and tried to find support in the Bible. Much of the Catholic case for Mary remaining a virgin depends on possible interpretations of verses. "Until" doesn't demand they had relations. The word used for brothers and sisters could have meant cousins. These are not strong statements. It's more like saying "we could be right" rather than saying "this proves we are right." The Catholic position cannot be proved by Scripture. It has to be accepted by Catholics because that is what their church tells them. They may agree but the argument cannot be proven by Scripture.

From the Protestant perspective, we don't see the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or her bodily assumption into heaven found in Scripture. We see no exceptions being given to "all" being sinners. We see no need for Mary to have been sinless. We see no need for her to have remained a virgin. We see no reason for her to have been bodily assumed into heaven. God could have chosen to do those things but we see no clear evidence He did. We also don't feel it is any slight to Mary's character for her to have ceased to be a virgin after Jesus was born. What would be so terrible about Mary having other children? We see nothing in the NT that elevates Mary to the position the Catholic church elevates her to. We see a faithful, righteous woman who believed God's incredible announcement to her. She trusted God and accepted His will. She is a model for us all. Did not Abraham have to believe some incredible things? Did he not have to trust God when told to sacrifice Isaac his only son? Yet no one suggests Abraham was perfect (we know he wasn't) or second only to God. What in Scripture demands that Mary had to be perfect to bear Jesus? Because the Ark of the Covenant was made of fine materials? That is hardly proof. Catholics call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant but Scripture doesn't.

If you are Catholic and want to believe those things about Mary, so be it. Just don't try and argue the Scriptures prove it. You can't.

 

[Soulx3]

While the siblings mentioned could have been cousins, they also could have been siblings.

They could not have been Jesus's half-siblings, because the evidence I provided here collectively shows that Jesus's kinsmen/relatives Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Joseph's brother), and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) who was Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law (Jn. 19:25), and were thus His cousins.

We have no record of her being commanded to remain a virgin. We have no record of her or her and Joseph taking a vow of celibacy.

We actually do, but you reject them because it's not what you'd rather believe.

We are told that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she had given birth.

In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his Spouse the Virgin Who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period: pre-birth of the Savior, a period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin. Note: This in and of itself doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse after that period ended, and thus can't and shouldn't be used as proof to support either.

• It is not stated in any writings of God that married couples are required to have sexual intercourse and/or procreate.
• It is not stated in any writings of God that a married couple is prohibited from taking a vow of chastity for God.
• It is not stated anywhere in the writings of God that make up the books in the New Testament that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse at any point.
• It is stated in the writings of God that make up the multi-volume book entitled "The Poem of the Man-God" that Joseph and Mary were chaste throughout their lives, including throughout their marriage, for God.

We see no need for Mary to have been sinless.

Jesus is God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God." Mary conceived and carried God Incarnate. Now, only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity?

God is Mary's Savior, because He preserved Her soul from inheriting the stain of original sin, which is why She was born with an immaculate soul, which allowed Her to be full of His Grace, and coupled with Her natural good will She never sinned. Only someone so perfect as to be second to God could carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy, Pure, and Perfect One.

All of this is stated in writings of God, writings that you reject because it's not what you'd rather believe.

 

[Valletta]

We are told that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she had given birth. While I understand the wording could allow for them never having had relations, why put it that way if you are trying to make the point that they vowed to stay celibate?

As you have been told, the word translated into "until" says nothing about what happens after the subject event. I think some examples would be helpful. You say "Why put it that way?" This is reminder about the Bible not originally being written in English and different languages had different common constructions. The same Greek word is used in other places in the Bible, with "until" and "til" and "onto" being some of the English words used in a number of translations into English. I provide you with a couple of examples:
1 Tim 4:13 13 "Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." RSVCE
The point of this passage is NOT to prove that after he arrives they never again publicly read scripture or preached or taught.

"2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death"
Likewise the point of this passage is not prove Michal had children after she was dead.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

They could not have been Jesus's half-siblings, because the evidence I provided here collectively shows that Jesus's kinsmen/relatives Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Joseph's brother), and his wife Mary of Cleophas (Clopas/Alphaeus) who was Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law (Jn. 19:25), and were thus His cousins.



We actually do, but you reject them because it's not what you'd rather believe.



In Matt. 1:20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his Spouse the Virgin Who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, he reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by referring to a specific period: pre-birth of the Savior, a period where Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary that would dispel any belief the Savior was conceived by him and not the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin. Note: This in and of itself doesn't indicate whether Joseph and Mary did or didn't have sexual intercourse after that period ended, and thus can't and shouldn't be used as proof to support either.

• It is not stated in any writings of God that married couples are required to have sexual intercourse and/or procreate.
• It is not stated in any writings of God that a married couple is prohibited from taking a vow of chastity for God.
• It is not stated anywhere in the writings of God that make up the books in the New Testament that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse at any point.
• It is stated in the writings of God that make up the multi-volume book entitled "The Poem of the Man-God" that Joseph and Mary were chaste throughout their lives, including throughout their marriage, for God.

Jesus is God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God." Mary conceived and carried God Incarnate. Now, only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity?

God is Mary's Savior, because He preserved Her soul from inheriting the stain of original sin, which is why She was born with an immaculate soul, which allowed Her to be full of His Grace, and coupled with Her natural good will She never sinned. Only someone so perfect as to be second to God could carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy, Pure, and Perfect One.

All of this is stated in writings of God, writings that you reject because it's not what you'd rather believe.

You reference writings that are not Holy Scripture. I don't accept those as of equal authority to Scripture. I also don't treat as equal the opinions of the church fathers. Your "proof" about Jesus' siblings is not proof. Similar names perhaps but Jesus had multiple sisters too. However, it matters more to you than it does to me as I don't believe Mary was ever-virgin. Whether or not she birthed additional children is not an issue for me. Even if she didn't, it doesn't prove she remained a virgin. Some women then, as today, were unable to get pregnant.

As I stated before, The Poem of the Man-God is not Scripture and has issues. Not even the Catholic church takes an official position on it. It has never been declared to be fully accepted by the Catholic church. I am not limited by what I'd rather believe. I am limited by the testimony of Scripture.