Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If you were convinced that your eldest brother was clearly insane and delusional how would you treat him?
If you grew up in the same house as Jesus then you would not be under such a misaprehension.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
If you grew up in the same house as Jesus then you would not be under such a misaprehension.

I have sadly known some instances where this has been the case even though the eldest sibling was not clinically insane. If my oldest sibling went around the countryside telling folks that she is God, do you have any idea what I could think?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have sadly known some instances where this has been the case even though the eldest sibling was not clinically insane.
You know people who grew up in the same house as Jesus :eek:
You must be a lot older than your profile states.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
At least we may rule out that the brothers are not cousins because there is a Greek word for cousin.

Whether they were sons of Joseph/previous wife or sons of Joseph/Mary depends simply on whether one prefers to use scripture or PoJames (see Origen).

Just because there is a Greek word for cousin doesn't mean you can rule out that the "brothers" of Jesus were his cousins.

1 Chronicles 23: 21 The sons of Merar′i: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli: Elea′zar and Kish. 22 Elea′zar died having no sons, but only daughters; their kinsmen, the sons of Kish, married them.

Eleazar and Kish are brothers because they are both identified as sons of Mahli. The sons of Kish married the daughters of Eleazar who would have been their cousins. But the word used in the Septuagint translated as "kinsmen" to describe the relationship between the daughters of Eleazar and the sons of Kish (cousins) is, you guessed it, adelphos. The same Greek word used in the New Testament to identify the "brothers" of Jesus.

So it's pretty apparent that you can't rule out a relationship identified as being "adelphos" in Greek as meaning cousins.

And, for what it's worth, I believe you're referring to "anepsios" which is used only one time in the New Testament and translated as "cousin". But "google translate" renders that as "nephew" in English, not cousin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Joseph was an aging widower who had children by his first wife when he married Mary, who had only one child, Jesus.

Clearly the relationship shown in scripture of Jesus with His (half)siblings indicates He is the youngest, not the oldest, or they'd have had much more respect for Him. Mary's angst over His missing at age 12 also suggests He did not have younger siblings (who would have been babes in her arms) but was the youngest Himself. There is also the fact that it was Jesus who had to make the arrangement with John to care for Mary, again suggesting that Mary was His mother, not the mother of the other siblings.

That's the story I'm going with for now, until the Lord makes the truth clear, in which case I'll drop that theory and any other like a handful of waspnest.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Joseph was an aging widower who had children by his first wife when he married Mary, who had only one child, Jesus.

Clearly the relationship shown in scripture of Jesus with His (half)siblings indicates He is the youngest, not the oldest, or they'd have had much more respect for Him. Mary's angst over His missing at age 12 also suggests He did not have younger siblings (who would have been babes in her arms) but was the youngest Himself. There is also the fact that it was Jesus who had to make the arrangement with John to care for Mary, again suggesting that Mary was His mother, not the mother of the other siblings.

That's the story I'm going with for now, until the Lord makes the truth clear, in which case I'll drop that theory and any other like a handful of waspnest.

You can go with what you wish and it will not affect your salvation in this matter, although my good friends in the RCC believe otherwise. Although I disagree with you, I definitely understand your reasoning and respect you for it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not true at all. I believe scripture demonstrates that Jesus' brothers were older than Jesus because they did not treat him as they would have if Jesus was their eldest brother, quite the opposite is apparent.

They did not believe (see John).
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just because there is a Greek word for cousin doesn't mean you can rule out that the "brothers" of Jesus were his cousins.
-snip-

Sure it does. In the NT:

Lk. 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

"cousin" is syggenes.

So, if the brothers of Christ were cousins, the gospel writers would have used that word. They didn't. Therefore, we can rule out that the brothers were cousins.

On a different note, clearly the townspeople who knew the family would know their relationship. They thought the brothers were sons of Joseph/Mary. Just like they doubted Jesus born of a virgin.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sure it does. In the NT:

Lk. 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

"cousin" is syggenes.

So, if the brothers of Christ were cousins, the gospel writers would have used that word. They didn't. Therefore, we can rule out that the brothers were cousins.

On a different note, clearly the townspeople who knew the family would know their relationship. They thought the brothers were sons of Joseph/Mary. Just like they doubted Jesus born of a virgin.

The definition in Strong's Concordance for that word is "akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.". It's used multiple times in the NT, and it's rarely translated as "cousin" and more often translated as relative or kinsman. Even in the verse you cite, in most translations it is not translated as "cousin". Only about a fourth of the translations on Biblegateway.com render it as "cousin". Without knowing the parentage of those involved, is it as generic as "adelphos". And I provided a Septuagint example where based on the parentage the relationship is clearly a cousin, yet it is translated into Greek as "adelphos".

The most definitive and honest approach from a Scripture alone perspective is that there's not enough information to know the exact relationship of these people to Christ. That's a perfectly legitimate answer. To profess more than that leaps beyond the text of Scripture and tries to use words that have been proven to indicate only a relationship of some type, to now mean something specific that they in no way can be said to conclusively state. They're relatives. That's all we really know, from Scripture. To assert more is to go beyond what Scripture says.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you were convinced that your eldest brother was clearly insane and delusional how would you treat him?

They did not believe (see John).

Both would have been irrelevant points in that time and place. Not even delusion and insanity removed the obligation of respect to the head of the household, which is what Jesus would have been if He were the elder brother. That's true among Middle Easterners even today.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Had they grown up in the shadow of the incarnate God, I dare say they would have.

You may dare, but Jn. 7:5 says otherwise. "For neither did his brethren believe in him."

After He was resurrected and He appeared to them, they believed. But at the cross, they were not there. John, son of Zebedee, was given the role of Mary's guardian.

Keep in mind it was prophesied that they wouldn't believe (Isaiah).
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Both would have been irrelevant points in that time and place. Not even delusion and insanity removed the obligation of respect to the head of the household, which is what Jesus would have been if He were the elder brother. That's true among Middle Easterners even today.

How do you explain David, youngest son of Jesse, being made king?

God is full of surprises ;)
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The definition in Strong's Concordance for that word is "akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.". It's used multiple times in the NT, and it's rarely translated as "cousin" and more often translated as relative or kinsman. Even in the verse you cite, in most translations it is not translated as "cousin". Only about a fourth of the translations on Biblegateway.com render it as "cousin". Without knowing the parentage of those involved, is it as generic as "adelphos". And I provided a Septuagint example where based on the parentage the relationship is clearly a cousin, yet it is translated into Greek as "adelphos".

The most definitive and honest approach from a Scripture alone perspective is that there's not enough information to know the exact relationship of these people to Christ. That's a perfectly legitimate answer. To profess more than that leaps beyond the text of Scripture and tries to use words that have been proven to indicate only a relationship of some type, to now mean something specific that they in no way can be said to conclusively state. They're relatives. That's all we really know, from Scripture. To assert more is to go beyond what Scripture says.

So if we go with Elizabeth was a kinswoman, we may put Mary into the house of David, like Joseph. IOW, they married within their tribe.

On the brother issue, we may agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You may dare, but Jn. 7:5 says otherwise. "For neither did his brethren believe in him."

After He was resurrected and He appeared to them, they believed. But at the cross, they were not there. John, son of Zebedee, was given the role of Mary's guardian.

Keep in mind it was prophesied that they wouldn't believe (Isaiah).
How does any of this impact what I have posted? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Also, could you refresh my memory regarding the Isaiah prophesy. Are you sure it wasn't the Psalms?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So if we go with Elizabeth was a kinswoman, we may put Mary into the house of David, like Joseph. IOW, they married within their tribe.

On the brother issue, we may agree to disagree.

We can certainly disagree, but none of these Greek terms for relationship, including adelphos which is translated into English as "brothers" is conclusive enough to determine any relationship beyond "relative". This is evident when the Septuagint uses the term to denote a relationship between uncle/nephew as "adelphos" and between cousins as "adelphos". The only way we know what the actual relationships are is because of the context -- parents are identified.

Thus, the only honest and true conclusion from Scripture is that there is no way to know the exact relationship between Christ and these brethren. The Catholics and Orthodox accept Sacred Tradition as valid, and know from that Sacred Tradition that these are not children of Mary. You are certainly welcome to draw from whatever tradition you choose to assert that they are. Regardless, the most one can say from Scripture is that we don't know.

Mary most certainly is from the house of David because we know that Christ descended from David according to the flesh. Elizabeth is married to a Levite. That would indicate to me that their relationship is through maternal ties, not paternal ones. It would also explain why the term "adelphos" is not used for Mary and Elizabeth, as that seems to me to be used more often when the tie is paternal.
 
Upvote 0