Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[justinangel]

So the assertion that "kefa would have been in both places" is shortsighted, especially where the Greek uses two separate words – which would work nicely, given the pun.

If in fact there is a pun, which may serve as one plausible explanation. Biblical exegesis deals with what is plausible, not with what is certain, so the best that can be done is arrive at the most plausible explanation. And that requires looking at things from different angles.

Aramaic has only one word for "huge rock" and that is Kepha. The Gospels provide evidence that Jesus renamed Simon Kepha. In John 1:42, Jesus calls Simon "Chephas" which is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5, and in Gal. 2:9. Thus, Peter is the huge or massive stone on which Jesus builds his Church. If Jesus wanted to distinguish Peter from the genuine rock of the Church, he would have used the word evna (little pebble). Evna would then have been translated as lithos, while Kepha would have been translated as Petros.

In the Greek language, nouns have a grammatical gender. Since petra ( a large immovable rock) is feminine, Matthew must have decided to record his name as Petros, if in fact he wrote his gospel in Greek instead of Hebrew. Greek requires a masculine noun to describe a man. So, Matthew chose Petros because the Greek grammatical rules required him to. Paul, moreover, identifies the proper masculine noun Christos with the feminine noun petra in 1 Cor. 10:4: "And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." This shows that Greek words do not have to match in gender when they are identified with each other. The masculine noun Petros can be identified with the feminine noun petra.

Hence, in Aramaic, Jesus told Simon bar Jonah: "You are Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church." The metaphor could function well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine nor masculine, but in Greek, the noun "rock" was feminine and thus unsuitable as a name for Peter. So, the Aramaic word Kepha was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock.

I'm replying only because your post hasn't been removed by the moderator for being off-topic. So, I'll end it here out of respect for the house rules. Don't want to type too much for nothing, in case our posts are removed.

J.A.

 

[JLB777]

We also have the statement “Behold your mother” (as in John 19) occurring in Matthew 12:47 and Mark 3:32.

Yes, was passing on the care of His mother to John, who loved the Lord.

Those who hear the word of God and do it, are said to be His brothers.

19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21

• My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Jesus was expanding the idea that His natural mother and brothers, were not the only mother and brothers He had, but those who hear the word of God and obey were also His family.


JLB

 

[justinangel]

Again you have strayed off topic in an attempt to distract from the truth that you have no scriptures to prove Mary remained a virgin
JLB

The Jews said the same thing to Ignatius of Antioch with respect to the Incarnation and the divinity of Christ: "You say that it is in the scriptures (OT), prove it!" If you were to begin by reading the OT before becoming acquainted with the Apostolic tradition of the Church and reading the NT, I'd bet you'd say the same thing to Ignatius, Anyway, here's the Scriptural proof-text that you've been looking for, now that you've heard the claim that Mary was ever-virgin. We've got to move in reverse to see the light. That's why Christ founded one Church on Peter and the Apostles instead of writing a book. The book came after. Without the teaching authority of the Church, the written word of God is made up of dead letters.

Mary, Mother of God: How Shall this Be?

J.A.

 

[justinangel]

The Lutheran Confessions affirm this belief in the Smalcald Articles of 1537, and the Formula of Concord --"Solid Declaration". This is an ageless teaching of the Church catholic, still confessed by the majority of Christians world-wide.

J.A.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Why should the PVM be mentioned?

The only reason I mentioned the Creeds is that I said it wasn't a Creedal issue, and kepha31 said "Not for you."

This entire bit here is a tangent.

circumlocutions

Yes, circumlocutions *are* used where single words are used in other languages. You cannot enforce a 1-to-1 word for word ratio between different language. The use of /bar-dud/ in Galilean Aramaic is well established as an abstract concept (explicitly in the example I gave from Yerushalmi).



Your example does not change the explicit context of how /'ah/ would have been employed in a literal sense in Luke 8 and Matthew 13, especially when contrasted with its figurative context specifically.

These guys say "Kepha" appears only once in the Syrian Aramaic of Matt. 16:18?

The Syriac Aramaic of Matthew 16:18 is a translation of the Greek and is not in the language that Jesus spoke. (Classical Syriac is 500 years too young and a different Aramaic language from Galilean.)

Congratulations. I have an honest question. New written evidence shows the Syrian liturgy celebrating the Assumption going back to 300 AD, predating the Apostles Creed by about 100 years. Do you know where I could get more information? [...] My second question is what language was common in Syria in the 2-3rd century?

I think the operative phrase in that link is "being put as far back as the third century by one commentator" which is indicative of the lack of substance of the date – this would have been a big deal if others agreed with it, and it's the kind of thing that would be on my radar. I'll take a deeper look to see what I can find.

Syriac was not a major language until the mid/late 4th-6th centuries, and before that it was mostly limited to the kingdoms of Adiabene and Osroene/Edessa in what is modern day Iraq and Turkey respectively. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries it was in a transitional period going from Old Syriac into the beginnings of Classical Syriac, and we only have some 80 inscriptions that survive from that period, all of them in the north. So in and around what is Syria today, it was mostly various local pagan dialects of Aramaic (derivatives from the residue of Imperial Aramaic) with some prominent ones like Palmyrene, and some Old Syriac in the north.

Aramaic has only one word for "huge rock" and that is Kepha. [...] he would have used the word evna (little pebble)

This is categorically false as the Galilean corpus has direct counter-examples where both evna and kefa were used to describe great slabs of stone as well as hand-sized "pieces" of rock and gravel.

In Targum Neofiti we find קיימא דאבן = /qaima d-even/ = "pillar of stone" (it'd be a trick for that pillar in context to be made of pebbles). Also in Neofiti we see that the 10 Commandments are described as לווחין דאבן = /lauḥin d'even/ = "tablets of stone". I'm sure these weren't pebbles either.

Also in Neofiti, we find כיף שמיר טנרה /kef šamir ṭənara/ = "a piece of hard flint" (literally "rock (of) flint (of) flint" kefa here meaning "piece of rock" and the two words for flint meaning a particular type of "hard flint," a hand-held piece for striking a fire). Also חד כיף דשייש = /ḥaḏ kef də-šaiš/ = "one piece of marble" (again kefa meaning "small piece of stone"). Also וטען כיפה מיזרוק בתריה = /w-ṭa’an kefa mezroq bathareh/ = "and he lifted the stone to throw at him". This is no "huge rock."

Where in other Jewish Aramaic dialects there may have been a size differentiation, they were complete synonyms in Galilean and other Western Aramaic languages like Samaritan and Christian Palestinian Aramaic.


So to review:

• Claims that "Aramaic has no word for cousin" in relation to Mary's virginity are disingenuous and must cease. The phrase I mentioned from Yerushalmi, כן אורחהון דבני דודייא עבדין = /kən 'orḥhon da-vənai dudayya 'avdin/ = "Is this how cousins act?" is speaking of cousins in the abstract using the Emphatic plural. It's not referring to someone's particular uncle or relationship, but cousins as a class, concept, or abstract group. Aramaic had a way to express this explicitly.
  
  
• Claims that "Aramaic has only one word for rock" or that "kefa means 'big rock' and evna means 'little pebble'" in relation to Cephas' monicker is categorically false and must cease. We have direct counter-examples of these arguments in the Galilean Aramaic corpus, itself.

That's pretty much it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Again you have strayed off topic in an attempt to distract from the truth that you have no scriptures to prove Mary remained a virgin.

19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Luke 8:19-21

• His mother and brothers came to Him.
• “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside.
  
• “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

This is an example of a point being repeated three times within a passage to emphasize the strength of that point.


Please post the scripture that uses mother and brothers as a reference to "cousins".


When coupled with "mother", brothers is a reference to sibling by the same mother.

Irrefutable proof Mary had other children after Jesus, and did not remain a virgin.

All the opinion in the world will not change that scriptural truth.

• But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:19

• Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55

Here there is a reference to both Joseph and Mary and their sons.

• These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Acts 1:14

JLB

If these were "blood brothers" they would have been compelled by law to care for their mother; they may well have been step brothers from a previous marriage; Widowed Joseph's children. Scripture leads us to consider this possibility; circumstantial though it is.

 

[prodromos]

Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules

• Repetitive posting of similar or identical posts or threads is not allowed.

Not only does it do nothing for the discussion, it is simply prideful, obnoxious and unbecoming of Christian behavior.

You made your point, JBL. No one is under any obligation to agree with it.

 

[justinangel]

Yes, circumlocutions *are* used where single words are used in other languages. You cannot enforce a 1-to-1 word for word ratio between different language. The use of /bar-dud/ in Galilean Aramaic is well established as an abstract concept (explicitly in the example I gave from Yerushalmi).

But there was no single word used for "cousin" in ancient Hebrew/Aramaic. Bar-dud is a combination of two words, that being son + uncle to mean cousin. We have single words for son and uncle, but not for cousin. That's my point. Words or expressions signify concepts, but aren't concepts themselves. Different words or expressions may also signify the same concept or general idea. Thus we have synonyms in all languages, as far as I know. Here's the previous example, but this time taken from the Hebrew OT:

The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.
- 1 Chronicles 23, 21-22

אֵחיֶהם (achi·em) literally "brothers-of-them"

The daughters of Eleazar are cousins of the sons of Kish. But "brothers" can also refer to male siblings. On the other hand, The term or "concept" ,as you put it, ben-dod בן דוד ("the son of the uncle") doesn't refer to any male relative other than cousin. But the word brother (ach) serves just as well as a substitute for cousin, as it does in 1 Chronicles, while it could also be used in reference to male siblings.

The word for uncle (dōḏ) is used independently with no need for any circumlocution in 1 Samuel 10:14:

'And Saul's uncle (dō-wḏ) said unto him and to his servant, Wither went ye?' (KJV)

We can say the same for the word "son(s)" (bên/bə·nê)

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, .... (Num. 16:1)

Now show me a word for cousin that can be used without the construction of a circumlocution - which isn't a single word in its own right.

Your example does not change the explicit context of how /'ah/ would have been employed in a literal sense in Luke 8 and Matthew 13, especially when contrasted with its figurative context specifically.

Just because the word mother is juxtaposed with the word brothers, it doesn't necessarily mean that these brothers of Jesus are his siblings. They can just as well be male cousins or step-brothers of his within the broader family circle in Semitic idiomatic usage. You know that as well as I do. The ancient Jewish family wasn't nuclear. Kinship extended to Klan. So, there's nothing contextual that supports your claim. Moreover, nowhere in Scripture are any of these brothers of Jesus called the "son of Mary" (Bar Maryam), though Jesus himself is referred to as the son or offspring of Mary. "Is not his mother called Mary?" (Mt.13:55). Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary...? (Mk 6:3). Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him...' (Luke 8:19). 'On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there,... (John 2:1). 'They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers'(Acts 1:14). All we know with certainty from Scripture alone is that Jesus was "the " son of Mary, and not just a son of hers. I would rest my case if Matthew read: "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't her other sons (the focus is on who Mary is as a mother to someone, because her being Jesus' mother strips him of any credibility he might have had) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?" The same goes for Mark, Luke, and Acts.

Returning to Mark, we see with certainty that the author retains the broad Semitic idiomatic usage of the word "brother" (adelphos/ἀδελφός) in his writing. This is evident in Mark 6:17-18: ' For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”' Now, are we to presume, in accord with modern English usage, that Herod Antipas and Philip were uterine brothers? Certainly not. Herod Antipas was the son of Mariamne the Hasonean, Herod the Great's second wife. Philip the Tetrarch (Herod Philip 1) was the son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Herod's fifth wife. Thus, the two men are half-brothers, having the same father but different mothers, even though they are called brothers, which may also be taken in the sense of being "of the same womb."

Finally, Catholics reasonably maintain that James, Joses, Jude (Thaddeus), and Simon were cousins of Jesus. Three of them, save Joses (Joseph) were also apostles of his. 'And he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John, the brother of James (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus (Jude), and Simon the Zealot (or Canaanite). and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him' (Mk. 3, 16-19). These three apostles are grouped together in the same order, just as they are in 6:3, because they are brothers whose father or step-father isn't Joseph but Alphaeus/Clopas, his brother.

Meanwhile, these apostles are ranked in order according to their age from eldest to youngest. It would certainly be an incredible coincidence if Jesus had uterine brothers, not only with the same names, but also ranking in the same order of age identically with these three apostles. Further, James and Joses are identified as being the sons of another Mary, the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas and sister-in-law of our Lord's mother (Mk. 15:40; Mt. 27:56; Jn. 19:25). This makes them cousins of Jesus.

The Syriac Aramaic of Matthew 16:18 is a translation of the Greek and is not in the language that Jesus spoke.

I'm well aware of the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But the Greek translation conveys what Jesus meant to say in his native language.

This is categorically false as the Galilean corpus has direct counter-examples where both evna and kefa were used to describe great slabs of stone as well as hand-sized "pieces" of rock and gravel.

In Targum Neofiti we find קיימא דאבן = /qaima d-even/ = "pillar of stone" (it'd be a trick for that pillar in context to be made of pebbles). Also in Neofiti we see that the 10 Commandments are described as לווחין דאבן = /lauḥin d'even/ = "tablets of stone". I'm sure these weren't pebbles either.

Pebbles or small stones, it makes no difference. The pillar and tablets are being described as being made of stone. Their literal size and weight are of no consequence. Jesus isn't describing Peter as a tablet could be described, but naming him after something, which in this case is a rock, since he has been given the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Jesus attributes this rock to Peter's person, not to any attribute of his. (See Mt.16:19-Rev.3:7). The Greek word lithos usually means "little pebble", so if Matthew wanted to describe Peter as a small rock or a tiny stone by the signification of his name, and emphasize the smallness of his rock stature, he might have used this word to best describe him.

• Claims that "Aramaic has only one word for rock" or that "kefa means 'big rock' and evna means 'little pebble'" in relation to Cephas' monicker is categorically false and must cease. We have direct counter-examples of these arguments in the Galilean Aramaic corpus, itself.

• I don't deny that the two words are sometimes used flexibly, but it depends on what is being referenced. I see no reason to conclude that Kefa means a small stone piece. For example, In Isaiah 8:14-15, we have the prophecy of the coming Messiah with the metaphors "stone" and "rock". "But for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel, for a snare and a ruin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Jesus cannot be a massive, immovable boulder in the sense that he is a stumbling block. But a man could stumble over a small movable rock or a large movable stone. It's a question of what we are referring to.
• This is the stone (λίθος or lithos) which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. - Acts 4:11

• J.A.
• 

 

[SteveCaruso]

But there was no single word used for "cousin" in ancient Hebrew/Aramaic. Bar-dud is a combination of two words, that being son + uncle to mean cousin.

And so is "e-mail" (from "electronic mail") but we use it as one. And the single Aramaic word שבקתני /šabaqtani/ means "you have forsaken me" – four words in English.

With the same logic, you could say that "there is no word for 'me'" in Aramaic (because Aramaic handles that using suffixes, not separate words) and it'd be both just as literally truthful and just as disingenuously misleading.

Just because the word mother is juxtaposed with the word brothers, it doesn't necessarily mean that these brothers of Jesus are his siblings. They can just as well be male cousins or step-brothers of his within the broader family circle in Semitic idiomatic usage.

Anything is possible. But you would have to make a very compelling case, given the juxtaposition is contrasting the literal with the explicitly figurative – as that is the whole point of the verse.

Once again, a different context does not compel your case, especially with the different epithets involved.

All we know with certainty from Scripture alone is that Jesus was "the " son of Mary, and not just a son of hers.

That's simply an artifact of a literal translation of the Aramaic patro/matronymic (much like how "abba" is translated "ho pater"/"the father" – but it's not the definite state in Galilean). It does not imply number like it does in English (or in many cases does not).

Pebbles or small stones, it makes no difference. The pillar and tablets are being described as being made of stone. Their literal size and weight are of no consequence.

But that's the specific argument that I am speaking against.

Make an argument from the Greek if you wish (which has its own linguistic problems in terms of relative size – Jesus as the cornerstone as you mentioned) but any argument to Aramaic should be strictly avoided.

 

[BukiRob]

Rocky in Mathew 13 the Jews had it wrong when they said: "is this not the carpenters son". Because as we know now, what they did not know then, that Jesus Christ was not actually the carpenters son, BUT the Son of God. Rocky, if they got this wrong they also got it wrong when these Jews stated: "and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Rocky, NOTE: the "?" Question Marks. These Jews did not know what they were asking they wanted answers they were asking QUESTIONS and the ONLY question they got CORRECT IS: "is not his mother called Mary"? And by their questions they were not even sure about Mary being His Mother.

Rocky, what Holy Man in the world would want to have relations with the mother of God? This question I am asking you, is one that I already know and not like the Jews in Matthew 13. The the answer is NO Man would want to have sexual relations with the Mother of God and Joseph a HOLIEST OF MEN would not think of such a thing. Joesph KNEW his ROLE, in the lives of Jesus and Mary.

Remember! Joseph did not want anything to do with Mary when he thought thought that Mary had relations with a mere man, it took an angle to explain to him in a dream, that it was by the Power of God/Holy Spirit that Mary had CONCEIVED. Even more so NOW knowing it was by the Holy Spirit, again Joseph being a Holy Man would NEVER! Again, Joseph knew now his Role, AND his ROLE IS THAT OF A CAREGIVER/SUPPORTER! And nothing more! Amen AMEN

Your portrayal of Joseph is way, way, way off base. Under Jewish Law, Joseph could have had Mary STONED. Scripture clearly states that he wanted to put her away quietly which was considered extremely honorable in that day. Hardly the way you paint the picture!

Secondly, Mary was a woman who was chosen by G-d she wasn't extra holy or without sin as many in the Catholic denomination attempt to paint her. She was redeemed by Messiahs blood just like you or anyone else.

She is not what is special, MESSIAH is what is special!!!!!

 

[Phil 1:21]

Secondly, Mary was a woman who was chosen by G-d she wasn't extra holy or without sin as many in the Catholic denomination attempt to paint her. She was redeemed by Messiahs blood just like you or anyone else.

Exactly. To somehow propose that God does not do extraordinary things with ordinary people refutes so, so much of scripture.

 

[kepha31]

Your portrayal of Joseph is way, way, way off base. Under Jewish Law, Joseph could have had Mary STONED. Scripture clearly states that he wanted to put her away quietly which was considered extremely honorable in that day. Hardly the way you paint the picture!

Secondly, Mary was a woman who was chosen by G-d she wasn't extra holy or without sin as many in the Catholic denomination attempt to paint her. She was redeemed by Messiahs blood just like you or anyone else.

Did Mary go to the Temple and recite the sinners prayer? Did the angel Gabriel say, POOF! you are now Full of Grace?? (kecharitomene) Of course she needed a savior, but when was she saved? Does being announced by an angel from God as "Full of Grace" mean having a little sin on the side? This term "Full of Grace" (kecharitomene) is found only in one other place in scripture: describing Jesus in John 1:14.

She is not what is special, MESSIAH is what is special!!!!!

This is an example of false dichotomous either/or thinking found in Protestantism. They are BOTH special, with the Messiah being the most special, it's both/and, not one being special at the exclusion of the other (either/or).

 

[kepha31]

And so is "e-mail" (from "electronic mail") but we use it as one. And the single Aramaic word שבקתני /šabaqtani/ means "you have forsaken me" – four words in English.

With the same logic, you could say that "there is no word for 'me'" in Aramaic (because Aramaic handles that using suffixes, not separate words) and it'd be both just as literally truthful and just as disingenuously misleading.

Anything is possible. But you would have to make a very compelling case, given the juxtaposition is contrasting the literal with the explicitly figurative – as that is the whole point of the verse.

Once again, a different context does not compel your case, especially with the different epithets involved.

That's simply an artifact of a literal translation of the Aramaic patro/matronymic (much like how "abba" is translated "ho pater"/"the father" – but it's not the definite state in Galilean). It does not imply number like it does in English (or in many cases does not).

But that's the specific argument that I am speaking against.

Make an argument from the Greek if you wish (which has its own linguistic problems in terms of relative size – Jesus as the cornerstone as you mentioned) but any argument to Aramaic should be strictly avoided.

In other words, the language Jesus spoke has less weight than a translation?

 

[SteveCaruso]

In other words, the language Jesus spoke has less weight than a translation?

Once again, your response does not quite follow.

The two spurious Aramaic arguments I have addressed specifically need to cease, not all Aramaic arguments. That was the context of my statement.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm repeating here what I have said before. It really does say it all and it will be my last comment on this subject.

"If you believe the scriptures over tradition - you will believe that Mary had other children.

If you believe tradition over the scriptures you may well believe that she did not.

Whether or not you place your trust in the Word of God will determine where you fall on this very straight forward question.

I believe that the scriptures as embodied in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible is the Word of God. Therefore I reject the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary."

I have been notified that many "prayer" tags have been clicked under my posts.

It is likely that those people would not be praying to the right person. So I sincerely ask you to not pray for me at all.

Thanks!

 

[JLB777]

Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules

• Repetitive posting of similar or identical posts or threads is not allowed.

Not only does it do nothing for the discussion, it is simply prideful, obnoxious and unbecoming of Christian behavior.

You made your point, JBL. No one is under any obligation to agree with it.

Those who claim posting the truth of the scriptures as obnoxious, seem to have an agenda of propping up there false tradition.


Please stop leading others astray with your traditions that make the word of God of no effect.


making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” Mark 7:13


Praying to Mary
Praying to saints
Worshiping statues
Referring to the Pope as holy father
Burning incense
forbidding priest's to marry
forbidding nuns to marry
enticing people to give money to get their dead loved ones out of purgatory


and on and on and on....


Please repent.



JLB

 

[prodromos]

Those who claim posting the truth of the scriptures as obnoxious

I claimed no such thing. I said repetitive posting of the same thing does nothing for the discussion, and it is prideful, obnoxious and unbecoming of Christian behaviour.

seem to have an agenda of propping up there false tradition.

I am not Catholic.

 

[JLB777]

I claimed no such thing. I said repetitive posting of the same thing does nothing for the discussion, and it is prideful, obnoxious and unbecoming of Christian behaviour.

I am not Catholic.

Do you believe Mary had other children after Jesus?



JLB

 

[prodromos]

Do you believe Mary had other children after Jesus?

The actions and attitudes of Jesus' brothers as recorded in the Scriptures demonstrate that they were Jesus' older brothers, therefore they could not have been children of Mary.

 

[JLB777]

The actions and attitudes of Jesus' brothers as recorded in the Scriptures demonstrate that they were Jesus' older brothers, therefore they could not have been children of Mary.

I see so you are claiming Mary had brothers of Jesus before He was born, and was not a virgin when she had Jesus.

Got it.

Since Jesus was the first born, and Mary was a virgin, then Jesus had no older brothers.


JLB