How many other children did Mary have?

[Thekla]

Excellent job.

However, this argument has a few problems.
1. This definiation is taken from the Septuagint. Therefore it is a translation of the original. It is not the original language.
2. Abraham said that his wife was indeed his sister (although she was his cousin). So then we can safely conclude that OT definitions of "brother" and "sister" takes on different meanings than what we know today.

The Septuagint is older than the present Masoretic texts.
More importantly, it is a usage template -- it provides us with a demonstration of how Greek speaking Jews expressed Semitic concepts in Greek.

Ancient Greek had a highly detailed nomenclature for relationships, revolving around legal rights and responsibilities (primarily inheritance rights and funerary obligations). Vernacular usage collapsed this unwieldily list, adelphos being expressive of many relationships and this is reflected in the usage of Greek speaking Jews as well.

Both Plato and the OT writer/s use adelphos broadly, providing further description where a specific relationship is meant.

In summary, the Septuagint is not a problem but in fact the opposite - a useful guide to the Semitic usage of Greek terminology.

With that as a "disclaimer", you did a great job proving that adelphos has been used to refer to cousins in the OT. In the same way, "brothers" in English can be taken all kinds of ways. But the proof is in the context.

But in both Semitic-Greek usage and native Greek usage, the guide is not confined to context. The only sure way to identify the particular meaning of the term is through further description -- as with Abraham and Lot, Abraham and Sarah, and the passages in Leviticus giving guidance on inappropriate sexual relationships.

Context without distinct description can be misleading, as one is wont to rely on one's assumptions instead of the text. A case in point: Philip and Herod are called adelphos in the NT. Certainly, there is nothing in the context that describes their actual relationship. Likewise the secular Greek text where a man refers to his wife as "adelphi" might incorrectky lead one to think that siblings had married.

For example, I call a few people "brothers", who are not my flesh and blood brothers, although I do have a flesh and blood brother also. In fact, I even call my cousin "brother" because he is a fellow Christian like myself.
However, suppose a newspaper reporter said that I was holding a meeting at an auditorium and my mother and my brother showed up wanting to talk to me, everybody without exception would naturally put two and two together and think "bio-mom"/"bio-brother". Its the context it is in.
In the same way, if I was a religious leader who had a great following, many of whom one could call my "brothers" (in the faith), and then someone were to refer to someone specifically as being my brother, as to distinguish him from the rest of the crowd, anyone would certainly take that as a reference to a bio-brother.

If you were a native or well practiced speaker of modern English, this is likely.

But the NT was written centuries before the English language came into existence, and arose from a very different culture.

And it would be incorrect to project your cultural sensibility onto the understanding of another culture, time, and language -- at least if you are interested in understanding what the text from a different time and place actually means. To do so would be not unlike thinking the NT references to the heart referred to the emotions.

Quite frankly, your argument is on the same level, and using the same principles as those who argue that Mary wasn't a virgin at all - because the word translated "virgin" simply means "young girl".
I'm sure you know that there are people who argue that quite fervently. And their argument is based on the same principle as yours. Therefore, you would have a great problem arguing with those who say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, because you play on the same field as they, taking words out of context, using an alternative, rarely used definition to prove your point.

Perhaps you could describe how my argument rests on the same principles as those who make this claim.

Nor have I taken words out of context; in fact my argument is entirely contextual, and includes appropriate linguistic and cultural context.

(I would also find it odd that one would make the claim that young girls are not typically virgins in Jewish culture.)

(shaking my head in disbelief) Yes. We had this argument before. Ok, so the angel said, "Joseph, don't be afraid to take Mary as your woman". Obviously, if a man were to take a certain girl as his woman ummmm I don't think it takes much peanuts to know that means "wife". Guess what, Thekla? I took a girl to be my woman too! Yes, indeed. And now we have 5 children.

You may come to that conclusion, but it would be based on a default and somewhat simplistic set of assumptions (for example, that "take" always refers to coitus when used in reference to a male and female, that blended families do not exist, that adoptions do not occur, etc.).

And, as I stated in my second post in response to this, clearly "take" refers to a change in location as Luke again refers to Mary and Joseph as still betrothed when describing events that occurred months later.

So wrong! So it never refers to what happens after the time span referred to by the term? Is that true?

Let's look at a few NT scriptures (to keep it in context) that use that same word:

[/SIZE]Matt 2:9 : "After the wise men heard the king, they left. The star that they had seen in the east went before them (until or while?) it stopped above the place where the child was"
Clearly, the scripture would make no sense if you used the word while.

And again...
Matt 2:13: "After they left, an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt, because Herod is starting to look for the child so he can kill him. Stay in Egypt (until or while?) I tell you to return.”"
Again, it would make no sense to translate heos(ews) as while.

And again...
Matt 5:18 "I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost (until or while?) everything has happened."

And again...
Mark 6:3 "When you enter a house, stay there (until or while?) you leave that town."

And again...
Luke 17:8 "But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me (until or while?) I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?

And again...
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost (until or while?) he finds it?"

I could go on, and on, and on... but I think (at least I hope) you see my point.
In fact, my boy in grade 3 would be able to accurately answer these questions. It doesn't take much.

English is not Greek.
In its Greek use, it indeed means while and can also mean until.
In English, until also refers to a span of time and, in fact, the use of until does not "demand" a reversal of the condition described. This is borne out by its use in logic, for example (a crystallization of the formal rules of the English - or any - language).

There are more examples of the use of the term ews in the NT and OT; check these, and let me know if all of them imply a reversal of condition. (And if they do, then Christian theology and understanding is quite different than we think it is.)

 

[Thekla]

To continue:

Ummm. Hello?

Ok. So there is a police report.
*Janice saw Greg with a gun in his hand
*Janice turned to look the other way and she heard a bang
*She looked back and saw Greg holding the smoking gun

What makes you think Greg shot the gun? In fact, what makes you think it was loaded?
It doesn't say that he shot the gun! Therefore he didn't right? [not]
It doesn't say that Greg's gun was loaded, therefore it wasn't right? [not]

This is not very instructive -- and in fact any number of scenarios could reasonably be proposed that would not conclude with Greg having shot the gun. This is not also a longer text, and is a quite dissimilar situation.

It is perhaps representative of your thinking re: the Scriptures under discussion, but does not actually deal with any of the issues I have presented.

Likewise:
1, Joseph was betrothed to Mary (promised in marriage)
2. Mary got pregnant
3. Angel told Joseph, "Don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife!" In other words God said "go ahead, you can marry her!" not "Don't marry her. She is to remain a virgin forever! I know you are already promised to her, and I know I should have told you before you got betrothed. I'm sorry, I'm a bit late. But now that I'm here. Don't touch her! She is to remain a virgin"

And Joseph did "take her", as they went to be registered for the household census. But as Luke also tells us, they were still betrothed.

4. Joseph waited until after Jesus birth before having sex with her.

Can you please give the Scripture reference that tells us they had sexual relations ?

5. In the "sin of familiarlity" people said of Jesus, "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (notice the context; mother; brothers; sisters)

But no description for adelphos/adelphi is given in these passages.

6. Jesus mother and brothers wanted to talk to him on another occasion.

Again, the terminology is not defined.

7. Specific people are referred to as the brothers of Jesus, which out-rules the "nationality", or "like-minded" applications of the word adelphos. This is not to mention the word translated "sisters" above.

But this still does not prove that these adelphos were biologically born of Mary. They could (per the usage) be of the same household, town, etc.

8. There is no scriptural evidence that James, Jude, etc... are cousins - just theories, assumptions, and speculations, concocted by EV proponents.

There is no Scriptural evidence that they are not cousins, etc.

These facts in combination spells only one conclusion: Mary got married, and had children.

Not at all. It is clear that you have decided there is "only one conclusion", but you have not based your conclusion solely on Scripture.

In fact, in Jesus day, every young woman was expected to get married. This is especially true of younger women. It was nearly a necessity as women could not work, nor support themselves without a husband.
Case in point: Jesus warned those who divorce their wife for no good reason, saying that such a husband causes his ex-wife to commit adultery. How would she commit adultery is she didn't remarry? Marriage was expected.

Betrothal contractually obligated the man to take care of and protect a woman; God did provide this care and protection through Mary's betrothal to Joseph. Upon widowhood, the woman was cared for by her sons (making the raising of the son of the widow of Nain all the more poignant). Jesus left Mary in the care of John, who was not her son.

Also, a woman, especially a young woman, who never got married was considered accursed. This is also clear in scripture.

Mary did have a child.
And per the culture, Christ should have married.

[/SIZE]Considered heretics? Perhaps hundreds of years after Joseph and Mary died, after the EV doctrines came to fruition. That way the truth of the matter is cloudy as it is centuries past.
Is there any documentation of anyone being call a heretic for saying that within the first century?

There is not much extant from the 1st century (indeed, very few fragments of NT copies and no originals). From this era, most information is gained from later historians, etc. There is indication that a group of Ebionites, who denied the conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit, believed that Mary had other children.

The witness of Celsus of what the Jews said is from the 2cnd c.
As for the EV being a later development, there is not evidence of this; nor are there any ancient Christian sources claiming that Mary had children other than Jesus.

Greg had a gun. bang! Gun was smoking. Was the gun loaded? Nobody saw him load it! It doesn't say in the police report that Greg loaded the gun. Therefore, according to your way of thinking, Greg's gun wasn't loaded.
Its amazing what people do to argue against obvious truth.

It is obvious to you, as this is what you had assumed; the Greg scenario represents your thinking on the matter albeit in a much different situation.

But, have you read the passages in Greek with a knowledge of Greek and the 1st century culture ?

Christ said, "Mother, behold your son" and to John, "Behold your mother" and John accepted her as his mother.
Where does it say that John was the only one taking care of Mary?
Some of my close friends, and even my wife calls my mother, "Mom". Does that mean my mother has no other children? Does that mean there are no other siblings taking care of her?

If relying on Scripture, then that is the measure - and there is no evidence in Scripture that she was cared for by anyone other than John.

We can guess, or make assumptions, but these would be beyond the specific witness in Scripture.

What can be said, based on Jewish culture, is that a widowed mother was cared for by her children - typically her son/s.

If she had no sons, then other arrangements were in order.
Christ gave the care of His mother to John, who was not her son.

I asked an honest question, expecting an intelligent answer.
My question was, "What is wrong with Mary having sex with Joseph and having a family as every blessed couple do? What's the problem with that? I don't get it."

If someone were to ask me what's wrong with Jesus being born of a mother who is not a virgin I would have a lot to answer. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. There is prophecy that the virgin birth fulfilled. There are many reasons why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. Without getting into too much detail. In Jesus wasn't born of a virgin we are both doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be crucified, I would have a lot to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. If Jesus never experienced a complete, absolute, and literal death we are all doomed.
If someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be raised. I would have much to answer. It fulfilled prophecy. Without writing a book, if Jesus wasn't raised bodily then we should all just live like dogs, and die like dogs. Without the bodily resurrection, we are doomed.

Likewise, when I ask why Mary has to remain a virgin I expect an intelligent answer.
Did it fulfill prophecy like all other events did. Was is the reason for such doctrine?
After Jesus was born, Mary's sexual and marital status has nothing to do with him. He is separated from her body. Therefore whatever happens to that body doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. If she is defiled, He wouldn't be! If she got married, that wouldn't affect Jesus' sinlessness of holiness in any way. Every person is responsible for their own bodies, especially if they are not pregnant.
Jesus was already born of a virgin, which fulfills all requirements and prophecies.

The question remains - Why is it that Mary had to remain a virgin? (at least in your mind)
Or is it true that someone concocted the doctrine within the first few hundred years AD for the purpose of applying hyper-holiness to Mary, which is nothing more than an over-exaggeration that is simply not true.

This discussion would be long, and at this time I cannot commit to the time for its exploration.

I will give a brief response:
1. Christ was born to a virgin, and interred in an unused burial cave; anywhere that God dwelt was "set aside/holy" and could not be given to any other use.
2. There is no prophecy that states the virgin would have other children.
3. There is no Scriptural indication that she did have other children (though one may assume otherwise).
4. In Jewish culture of the time, having more children would be evidence that Christ was not the Son of God conceived of the Holy Spirit;
*it was expected at that time that such a close encounter with God resulted in abstinence (Midrash recounts that this was true of Moses)
*Christ was called the Logos by John -- the equivalent to the Jewish understanding Torah; it was forbidden to have sexual relations in the presence of the Torah.

 

[Standing Up]

It is foreign back then on what we view as sacred and how we treat sacred. If anyone can imagine that Joseph who was a God fearing man would not view Mary as someone set aside as Sacred is not walking in his shoes on this point. Mary is a very unique person who had something very unique happened in her life. For radicals to try and downgrade her uniqueness for the sole purpose of refuting the Catholic Church is just well sad. Mary is a very unique person. There has been no one like her before or after her. There is no one else that could have been her. She was pre-destined to be that virgin who through her obedience would be used by God to bring salvation into the world through her Son. Through her obedience she undid Eve's disobedience.

You need to think about this just for one second. The first time. The very first time that a Christian group challenged Mary's perpetual virginity occurred in the 15th century. Not in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th or 12th. The 15th century. 1600 years after the fact is this miracle challenged for the first time.

Just not true. Didn't you yourself quote Jerome refuting Helvidius c400? BTW, I read your link. He stumbles at his cousin theory. Read it. He knows it and hurries on to his presupposed conclusion. You see, the church rejected the Proto of James. Someone had to come up with some alternative. Jerome tries his best.

There's only 3 theories as to who the brothers were.

1) Sons of Joseph/Mary
2) Sons of Joseph/previous wife
3) Cousins

The church at Jerome's time rejected #2. Its source contradicted scripture, was docetic, and banned. Oops that leaves only #1. Jerome then comes up with #3.

Too bad Jerome didn't (couldn't?-like his septuagent problem and Rome) go with scripture/tradition that was Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, Tertulian, and others.

 

[HeavensWorship]

The Septuagint is older than the present Masoretic texts.
More importantly, it is a usage template -- it provides us with a demonstration of how Greek speaking Jews expressed Semitic concepts in Greek.

Ancient Greek had a highly detailed nomenclature for relationships, revolving around legal rights and responsibilities (primarily inheritance rights and funerary obligations). Vernacular usage collapsed this unwieldily list, adelphos being expressive of many relationships and this is reflected in the usage of Greek speaking Jews as well.

Both Plato and the OT writer/s use adelphos broadly, providing further description where a specific relationship is meant.

In summary, the Septuagint is not a problem but in fact the opposite - a useful guide to the Semitic usage of Greek terminology.

So then, "brothers", is a good translation of adelphos, seeing that both words can be taken many different ways. However, I understand that adelphos, like brothers, conveys a primary meaning of bio-brothers as opposed to like-minded friends.

Perhaps you could describe how my argument rests on the same principles as those who make this claim.

Nor have I taken words out of context; in fact my argument is entirely contextual, and includes appropriate linguistic and cultural context.

(I would also find it odd that one would make the claim that young girls are not typically virgins in Jewish culture.)

I am a firm believer in the virgin birth. I will defend that position with passion.
But I am a Berean at heart (Acts 17). Bereans were commended for "proving" Paul's teachings up against the OT scriptures. They didn't believe Paul just because he had a name in the Christian world. Likewise, I don't believe any preacher, pastor, priest, or saint just because they earned themselves a name. I test every action, and every ritual, and every belief against the scriptures to see if they are correct.
Rabbit trail: That leads me to think of another unscriptural practice - chanting "Hail Mary" countless times. Never was Mary exalted to that extent anywhere in scripture. But that's another argument, I'm sure.

You may come to that conclusion, but it would be based on a default and somewhat simplistic set of assumptions (for example, that "take" always refers to coitus when used in reference to a male and female, that blended families do not exist, that adoptions do not occur, etc.).

Yes, I come to that conclusion. I pray that I take a totally unbiased position on this matter. I do not consider myself to be protestant, RC, or EO, just a believer, lover and follower of Jesus who wants the unadulterated, unbiased, unpolluted truth!

English is not Greek.
In its Greek use, it indeed means while and can also mean until.
In English, until also refers to a span of time and, in fact, the use of until does not "demand" a reversal of the condition described. This is borne out by its use in logic, for example (a crystallization of the formal rules of the English - or any - language).

Ecuse my bluntness: I understand what you are saying, but at the same time I hear a lot of nothing in regards to any point here that actually makes a difference considering all the examples I just presented you with.

There are more examples of the use of the term ews in the NT and OT; check these, and let me know if all of them imply a reversal of condition. (And if they do, then Christian theology and understanding is quite different than we think it is.)

You are correct here. There are cases where ews can be translated "while", but the vast majority should, and is, translated "until".
You have failed to acknowledge that you are utterly wrong saying that it never use used as such.

 

[HeavensWorship]

This is not very instructive -- and in fact any number of scenarios could reasonably be proposed that would not conclude with Greg having shot the gun. This is not also a longer text, and is a quite dissimilar situation.

It is perhaps representative of your thinking re: the Scriptures under discussion, but does not actually deal with any of the issues I have presented.

< Staff Edit >
You get my point. You don't need to actually put it in writing that Greg's gun was loaded to know that it was. In the same way, just because there are no scriptures explicitly stating that Mary ate food, drank water, bathed, and even used the "restroom" to relieve herself... doesn't mean she never did!
Give me a flipping break! She is human. As a human we can safely say she did all these things.
In the same way, we can safely say that she got married, and she lived a normal life, and nobody went around saying "hail Mary". amen?
In fact, one person came close to it by saying "Blessed in the mother who gave birth to you and nursed you!"
Jesus fired back "No, blessed are those who hear the teaching of God and obey it."
I bet that verse makes the Mary worshipers squirm, doesn't it?

And Joseph did "take her", as they went to be registered for the household census. But as Luke also tells us, they were still betrothed.

I agree. It is clear in scripture (if you can put two and two together) that Joseph and Mary got married after the birth of Jesus. The census was while she was still pregnant. Thus they were still betrothed. This makes sense. I agree with you here.

Can you please give the Scripture reference that tells us they had sexual relations ?

< Staff Edit > No. The scriptures do not explicitly state, "And it came to pass that Joseph and Mary got married"
But it does say things such as "His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph, but before they married, she learned she was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit."
Other translations say they were engaged "before they came together"....
Before they were married.... Before they came together.... same thing.
Another scripture states "...but he (Joseph) did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named him Jesus."
other translations say before Joseph "knew her".
And once again the angel of the Lord said to Joseph do not be afraid to take Mary as yourwife.
The story is clear as a bell:
*They were betrothed to get married.
* Before they were married, Mary learned she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit
* Joseph considered putting her away... or ending the betrothal because he thought she was fooling around on him.
* An angel came to Joseph and said don't be afraid to continue with your plans. Go ahead and "take" her as your "woman". (street language for "take her as your wife")
* Joseph waited until after Jesus was born
* in the meantime they went to register at the census
* Mary gave birth
* afterwards they got married, as Joseph promised (betrothal)
* and they lived happily every after bearing several sons and daughters. Why? because they are human beings, blessed of God!

Let me put it this way:
If I told you that I used to smoke before I was married, what does that tell you?
I didn't say I was married, so don't be saying I got married!
I just told you the truth: Some years before I was married I used to smoke.
But you better not believe that I got married, because I didn't explicitly state that! I just told you the truth.

< Staff Edit >

Not at all. It is clear that you have decided there is "only one conclusion", but you have not based your conclusion solely on Scripture.

I think its the other way around. You have not based your conclusion solely on scripture. You have based your conclusion on handed down doctrines and traditions that are not based on scripture... there is also a good dose of influence/brainwashing that has been handed down through the millenia.
Could it then be that somebody "missed it" and overemphasized, and over-exalted Mary?

Betrothal contractually obligated the man to take care of and protect a woman; God did provide this care and protection through Mary's betrothal to Joseph. Upon widowhood, the woman was cared for by her sons (making the raising of the son of the widow of Nain all the more poignant). Jesus left Mary in the care of John, who was not her son.

Once again... you are reading something into scripture that is not there. Jesus told John "Behold your mother", and to his mother, "Behold your son."
And John accepted her as his mother.
But that does not imply that Mary didn't have many other children?
Re-read my previous comment.

Mary did have a child.
And per the culture, Christ should have married.

Christ being a male wasn't under any pressure to get married, other than by His natural tendencies, which I believe He had under control.
Women, especially young women, where more or less forced to get married if they wanted to survive. Jesus knew that... thus "you cause her to commit adultery" if you divorce her for an unacceptable reason. Makes perfect sense to me.

There is not much extant from the 1st century (indeed, very few fragments of NT copies and no originals). From this era, most information is gained from later historians, etc. There is indication that a group of Ebionites, who denied the conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit, believed that Mary had other children.

The witness of Celsus of what the Jews said is from the 2cnd c.
As for the EV being a later development, there is not evidence of this; nor are there any ancient Christian sources claiming that Mary had children other than Jesus.

I see it clear in the NT. But even if there were other documents I'm sure you would find some way of shooting it down (at least in your own mind)

If relying on Scripture, then that is the measure - and there is no evidence in Scripture that she was cared for by anyone other than John.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. If you did, it must not have sunk in. I said... There is no evidence she was cared for by John. It simply states that John accepted her as his own mother. Take it as you will. But there could have been many other siblings sharing the responsibility.

1. Christ was born to a virgin, and interred in an unused burial cave; anywhere that God dwelt was "set aside/holy" and could not be given to any other use.

God dwelt in Bethlehem. Does that mean no one else ever dwelt there?
God was born in a manger. Does that mean it was a "virgin" manger that was spic-and-span, never used?
God dwelt in the land of Israel. Does that mean that that land was never used for any other thing?
For that matter, God came to earth. Does that mean that earth was "set aside/holy" and could not be given to any other use?

= don't hold water... sorry.

2. There is no prophecy that states the virgin would have other children.

Here we go again. Yes, and there is no prophecy that states that Mary outlived Joseph. There is no prophecy that states that Mary every made supper. There is no prophecy that Mary ever held Jesus.
My point is that important things about Mary/Jesus are foretold. The perpetual virginity is not, is it? please give scriptural reference to prophecy that I may have missed

3. There is no Scriptural indication that she did have other children (though one may assume otherwise).

Once again... 1+1=2 There are many scriptures that lead us to believe she did, if you can put two together.

4. In Jewish culture of the time, having more children would be evidence that Christ was not the Son of God conceived of the Holy Spirit;
*it was expected at that time that such a close encounter with God resulted in abstinence (Midrash recounts that this was true of Moses)
*Christ was called the Logos by John -- the equivalent to the Jewish understanding Torah; it was forbidden to have sexual relations in the presence of the Torah.

[/quote]

The evidence that Jesus was God is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, carried, and gave birth to Jesus. An angel told her that the child is conceived of the Holy Spirit = God is Father. If God is your bio-Father, then you are God... the Pharisees understood this. That is why they freaked when Jesus said His Father was God (making himself equal with God).
Powerful encounters with God result in abstinence? Hmmm
Both my wife and I had very powerful, life changing encounters with God and angels. In fact my wife was a Muslim from a Muslim country until she had a very powerful encounter with God... ummm does that mean that God wants us to abstain? I think I better move on before I get myself in trouble!...
Adam walked with God very close. Yet God commanded him to have sex. If you have a problem with that, I would like to know how any human being can be fruitful and multiply without using their reproductive organs.
... same goes with Abraham and Sarah... and others...
Forbidden to have sexual relations in the presence of Logos/Torah? Superstition.
The Logos made sex - albeit we must be careful to use it as prescribed

 

[seashale76]

The fact is, the burden of proof lies with your side, OP. You have assumptions, but no proof.

 

[Erose]

Just not true. Didn't you yourself quote Jerome refuting Helvidius c400? BTW, I read your link. He stumbles at his cousin theory. Read it. He knows it and hurries on to his presupposed conclusion. You see, the church rejected the Proto of James. Someone had to come up with some alternative. Jerome tries his best.

Until the 16th century we have evidence of one man, who proposed this novel idea. Not a heretical group, nor a certain school. One man, who Jerome takes to task for his ignorance of Scripture.

I don't see how you can say he stumbles on the cousin theory. That is a bias observation on your point.

Also please reference where the Church condemned the PofJ.

There's only 3 theories as to who the brothers were.

1) Sons of Joseph/Mary
2) Sons of Joseph/previous wife
3) Cousins

To start off with concerning the radical theory, can you provide me quotes from early church fathers who believed the radical theory? Just interested if you know any.

The second one seems the most popular especially among the Eastern Fathers, this is the one that I lean more toward. Primarily because the lack of St. Joseph's presence during Lord Jesus' ministry. This leads me to think that Joseph was an older man.

My only issue is that the list of brethren is identical to the sons of Mary of Cloepas who is called Virgin Mary's sister. Most probably these named are Mary's nephews or 2nd cousins, if one assumes that Mary's parents wouldn't name both of their daughters with the same name. And I think this is the reason why this model was popular as well and seems to be more accepted among the Western Fathers as both Jerome and Augustine believe this model to be true. Also since Augustine taught this as tradition it would lead one to assume that this model is prior to Jerome. In other words you are wrong that Jerome invented this model.

The church at Jerome's time rejected #2. Its source contradicted scripture, was docetic, and banned. Oops that leaves only #1. Jerome then comes up with #3.

No you are wrong in your assertion. The Church has never ever rejected #2. One is able to adhere to either model. What is infallible teaching is the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity.

Too bad Jerome didn't (couldn't?-like his septuagent problem and Rome) go with scripture/tradition that was Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, Tertulian, and others.

Hum, well considering that there was two accepted models at the time, and he followed the Western tradition as that was the school from which he came.

I find it interesting that you will trust Jerome concerning the Biblical canon and yet reject him outright concerning this. Very interesting.

 

[Standing Up]

Until the 16th century we have evidence of one man, who proposed this novel idea. Not a heretical group, nor a certain school. One man, who Jerome takes to task for his ignorance of Scripture.

I don't see how you can say he stumbles on the cousin theory. That is a bias observation on your point.

I read to be corrected. He fails. He fails because he knows the apostle James believed in Jesus prior to His death, while brother James did not believe until after His resurrection.

Read his stuttering at chapter 16, though prior and after his assured eloquence. "possibly the case might be"
NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The early church knew James the greater (son of Zebedee), James the less (son of Alpheaus), and James the just (son of Joseph).

Also please reference where the Church condemned the PofJ.

Decretum Gelasianum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation) (see section V)

To start off with concerning the radical theory, can you provide me quotes from early church fathers who believed the radical theory? Just interested if you know any.

Follow through Jerome's references to Tertullian and Africanus.

The second one seems the most popular especially among the Eastern Fathers, this is the one that I lean more toward. Primarily because the lack of St. Joseph's presence during Lord Jesus' ministry. This leads me to think that Joseph was an older man.

Maybe. Or maybe his sons were like him.

My only issue is that the list of brethren is identical to the sons of Mary of Cloepas who is called Virgin Mary's sister. Most probably these named are Mary's nephews or 2nd cousins, if one assumes that Mary's parents wouldn't name both of their daughters with the same name. And I think this is the reason why this model was popular as well and seems to be more accepted among the Western Fathers as both Jerome and Augustine believe this model to be true. Also since Augustine taught this as tradition it would lead one to assume that this model is prior to Jerome. In other words you are wrong that Jerome invented this model.

No you are wrong in your assertion. The Church has never ever rejected #2. One is able to adhere to either model. What is infallible teaching is the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity.

Hum, well considering that there was two accepted models at the time, and he followed the Western tradition as that was the school from which he came.

I'd have to see the reference to Augustine teaching the cousin theory.

I find it interesting that you will trust Jerome concerning the Biblical canon and yet reject him outright concerning this. Very interesting.

Didn't Jerome "provide" the RC OT canon? I was hinting that he knew he "shouldn't", but did anyway. In any event, my agreeing with Jerome on X and disagreeing with him on Y is no different from what your own RC does. There's not one RC person in history, but traditions picked from here and there. (If you ask what church person is akin to my view in history apart from scripture, I'd point to Polycarp.)

 

[Trogool]

The fact is, the burden of proof lies with your side, OP. You have assumptions, but no proof.

Precisely, and I must say I'm disappointed with how immature the OP is acting. In tone, he's becoming quite abusive towards us "Mary worshippers". It's too bad to see basic civility isn't a priority for him.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Kristos]

The fact is, the burden of proof lies with your side, OP. You have assumptions, but no proof.

I do find it ironic, that sometimes that same people who fall back on "it's not in the bible, therefore it's not true" cling to the idea that Mary had other children, even though it is clearly not stated anywhere. The brother issue is completely unrelated because it concerns their relationship to Jesus, not Mary.

 

[Thekla]

So then, "brothers", is a good translation of adelphos, seeing that both words can be taken many different ways. However, I understand that adelphos, like brothers, conveys a primary meaning of bio-brothers as opposed to like-minded friends.

Brothers is a reasonable translation, but does not cover the sense of the term in Greek - nor are modern English speakers given to more closely considering its actual Scriptural and secular usage in the 1st century, nor the cultural understanding of that era.

I am a firm believer in the virgin birth. I will defend that position with passion.
But I am a Berean at heart (Acts 17). Bereans were commended for "proving" Paul's teachings up against the OT scriptures. They didn't believe Paul just because he had a name in the Christian world. Likewise, I don't believe any preacher, pastor, priest, or saint just because they earned themselves a name. I test every action, and every ritual, and every belief against the scriptures to see if they are correct.

Two points:
1. the Bereans (according to the Greek) "These were noble/well-born who searched the Scriptures ..."
For some reason, translators have chosen to add to the verse, giving the pronoun "ostis" (who) as a preposition plus two demonstrative pronouns (in that they), changing the sense of the passage. And have not done so in any other passage using "ostis". You can check here for yourself:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

This said, I fully embrace the searching of Scripture for understanding and for confirmation -- which is exactly what I have done in this case. I have put aside both positions, and have prayed and then studied assiduously. I have come to the conclusion that the Scriptures do not offer any proof that Mary had other children.

2. I have argued only from Scripture, and the search of Scriptures.
You are welcome to think what you like, nor am I interested in convincing you of anything. What I am presenting is evidence only from Scripture. And the evidence from Scripture demonstrates that to come to the conclusion that Mary bore more than Jesus, had more than one child, relies on extra-Scriptural assumptions.

Rabbit trail: That leads me to think of another unscriptural practice - chanting "Hail Mary" countless times. Never was Mary exalted to that extent anywhere in scripture. But that's another argument, I'm sure.

I'm not sure what you are calling a "rabbit trail", nor why you choose that characterization. Nor why you mention the RC practice of "chanting "Hail Mary".

Yes, I come to that conclusion. I pray that I take a totally unbiased position on this matter. I do not consider myself to be protestant, RC, or EO, just a believer, lover and follower of Jesus who wants the unadulterated, unbiased, unpolluted truth!

And as one who loves Christ, and wants the unbiased truth, I have searched the Scriptures. I have come to the conclusion that the position that Mary had other children is not supported by Scripture.

Ecuse my bluntness: I understand what you are saying, but at the same time I hear a lot of nothing in regards to any point here that actually makes a difference considering all the examples I just presented you with.

You chose a limited number of Scriptures, and have thus skipped my request to you -- which was to consider every verse using the term "ews". Greek does not have the equivalent of the English preposition, and ews, used as a conjunction or an adverb, roughly covers a number of English concepts.

But the central point is this - neither in Greek (ews), nor in English (until) is the condition described by ews/until necessarily reversed after the time frame mentioned. And in many verses using ews, the condition is not reversed, or is not known to be reversed. In those instances where it is changed/reversed, it is known to be because more information is given.
So the onus is on you to point to the verse/s that demonstrate that the condition of Joseph "not knowing" Mary was changed.

There is also the matter of Mary's response that she is "not knowing a man" in a verb form only used for an ongoing (not time sensitive) condition. Ie, her "not knowing a man" is said in a tense that means always.

You are correct here. There are cases where ews can be translated "while", but the vast majority should, and is, translated "until".
You have failed to acknowledge that you are utterly wrong saying that it never use used as such.

I don't recall saying "never used as such", or making a similar statement.

 

[Thekla]

< Staff Edit >.

You get my point. You don't need to actually put it in writing that Greg's gun was loaded to know that it was. In the same way, just because there are no scriptures explicitly stating that Mary ate food, drank water, bathed, and even used the "restroom" to relieve herself... doesn't mean she never did!
Give me a flipping break! She is human. As a human we can safely say she did all these things.
In the same way, we can safely say that she got married, and she lived a normal life, and nobody went around saying "hail Mary". amen?

You have imagined a scenario, and then have described your imaginings with a series of brief statements. That you have the entire scenario held in your imagination means you hold the entirety of the information, and have shared part of the information in words.
That I do not hold your entire imaginary scenario in my mind should not surprise you.

But further, you have created a scenario hoping to prove your point - a scenario that is not what we are discussing, but aside the events and the Scriptures.

And yes, we can safely know that events occurred that are not recorded in Scripture. But you are assuming things not in evidence -- for example that Mary ever married (gamew) - Scripture does not say that, but several times mentioned her betrothal.

I do not understand why you insist that Mary be as you desire her to be.

In fact, one person came close to it by saying "Blessed in the mother who gave birth to you and nursed you!"
Jesus fired back "No, blessed are those who hear the teaching of God and obey it."
I bet that verse makes the Mary worshipers squirm, doesn't it?

Menounge is a confirmation plus a turn; again, translations have changed the typical use of the term (see other verses in the NT -- the other anomalous translation is used when Paul makes an ironic statement as a rebuff).

The woman in this passage is repeating a blessing found also in the OT - Christ says yes, moreso blessed are those who hear and keep the word of God.

Indeed, Mary did hear and keep the word of God announced by Gabriel; if she hadn't, Christ would not have been born of her.

I agree. It is clear in scripture (if you can put two and two together) that Joseph and Mary got married after the birth of Jesus. The census was while she was still pregnant. Thus they were still betrothed. This makes sense. I agree with you here.

I'm not willing to say they clearly did marry (gamew) without actual evidence that they did.

Clearly they shared a household, and Joseph was the head of that household (which would make all in that household who were "under" the head of the household "adelphos/adelphi).


< Staff Edit >
The scriptures do not explicitly state, "And it came to pass that Joseph and Mary got married"
But it does say things such as "His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph, but before they married, she learned she was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit."
Other translations say they were engaged "before they came together"....
Before they were married.... Before they came together.... same thing.
Another scripture states "...but he (Joseph) did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named him Jesus."
other translations say before Joseph "knew her".
And once again the angel of the Lord said to Joseph do not be afraid to take Mary as yourwife.[/quote]

I'm not using translations.
And as before, take (and the Greek equivalent it is translated from) does not always mean sexual relations.
We can assume Joseph did take Mary into his household based on statements made in the Gospel of Luke.

The story is clear as a bell:
*They were betrothed to get married.
* Before they were married, Mary learned she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit
* Joseph considered putting her away... or ending the betrothal because he thought she was fooling around on him.
* An angel came to Joseph and said don't be afraid to continue with your plans. Go ahead and "take" her as your "woman". (street language for "take her as your wife")
* Joseph waited until after Jesus was born
* in the meantime they went to register at the census
* Mary gave birth
* afterwards they got married, as Joseph promised (betrothal)
* and they lived happily every after bearing several sons and daughters. Why? because they are human beings, blessed of God!

You start with what is known from Scripture, then add your assumptions which are not known from Scripture, but treat your assumptions as equal to Scripture. That is not "okay" with me - in this it seems I'm being what you might call "Berean".

Let me put it this way:
If I told you that I used to smoke before I was married, what does that tell you?
I didn't say I was married, so don't be saying I got married!
I just told you the truth: Some years before I was married I used to smoke.
But you better not believe that I got married, because I didn't explicitly state that! I just told you the truth.

How is that at all related ?

< Staff Edit >
I'm not adding to Scripture.

I think its the other way around. You have not based your conclusion solely on scripture. You have based your conclusion on handed down doctrines and traditions that are not based on scripture... there is also a good dose of influence/brainwashing that has been handed down through the millenia.
Could it then be that somebody "missed it" and overemphasized, and over-exalted Mary?

And why do you think that ?

Once again... you are reading something into scripture that is not there. Jesus told John "Behold your mother", and to his mother, "Behold your son."
And John accepted her as his mother.
But that does not imply that Mary didn't have many other children?
Re-read my previous comment.

I was quite clear that I was referring to the cultural practice.
Given the Jewish practice for care of widows, Christ giving the care of his mother to John implies she had no other children to care for her.

Christ being a male wasn't under any pressure to get married, other than by His natural tendencies, which I believe He had under control.
Women, especially young women, where more or less forced to get married if they wanted to survive. Jesus knew that... thus "you cause her to commit adultery" if you divorce her for an unacceptable reason. Makes perfect sense to me.

All Jews were expected to marry. In fact, for a man not to marry was considered unusual (and suspect).

I see it clear in the NT. But even if there were other documents I'm sure you would find some way of shooting it down (at least in your own mind)

I have done extensive research, and shared what I found. You are also welcome to do your own research into historic writings.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. If you did, it must not have sunk in. I said... There is no evidence she was cared for by John. It simply states that John accepted her as his own mother. Take it as you will. But there could have been many other siblings sharing the responsibility.

I just pointed out that this is not recorded in Scripture.
People can imagine any scenario they please beyond that.

God dwelt in Bethlehem. Does that mean no one else ever dwelt there?
God was born in a manger. Does that mean it was a "virgin" manger that was spic-and-span, never used?
God dwelt in the land of Israel. Does that mean that that land was never used for any other thing?
For that matter, God came to earth. Does that mean that earth was "set aside/holy" and could not be given to any other use?
= don't hold water... sorry.

The earth was entrusted to mankind - Genesis 1:26-28
Note that Mt. Sinai, the burning bush, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies -- these were all "set aside" places, and access to these was limited.
You can trace the idea of set-aside vessels, places, and uses throughout the OT.
The "overshadowing" Mary experienced (Luke 1:35) is, in the choice of terminology, paralleled to Exodus 40:33-35 (Septuagint) -- the only two places in the Scriptures that `episkiasei' is used. Because of this overshadowing, Moses could not enter the tabernacle.

Here we go again. Yes, and there is no prophecy that states that Mary outlived Joseph. There is no prophecy that states that Mary every made supper. There is no prophecy that Mary ever held Jesus.
My point is that important things about Mary/Jesus are foretold. The perpetual virginity is not, is it? please give scriptural reference to prophecy that I may have missed

Why do you insist on prophecy for some things and not for others, then ?

Once again... 1+1=2 There are many scriptures that lead us to believe she did, if you can put two together.

I don't think that "putting two and two together" should supersede Scripture.

The evidence that Jesus was God is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, carried, and gave birth to Jesus. An angel told her that the child is conceived of the Holy Spirit = God is Father. If God is your bio-Father, then you are God... the Pharisees understood this. That is why they freaked when Jesus said His Father was God (making himself equal with God).

Yes, they understood exactly what Christ was saying.

Powerful encounters with God result in abstinence? Hmmm

But I was not discussing you and your wife.
I was discussing Midrash and the understanding of Jews of the 1st c.

Both my wife and I had very powerful, life changing encounters with God and angels. In fact my wife was a Muslim from a Muslim country until she had a very powerful encounter with God... ummm does that mean that God wants us to abstain? I think I better move on before I get myself in trouble!...
Adam walked with God very close. Yet God commanded him to have sex. If you have a problem with that, I would like to know how any human being can be fruitful and multiply without using their reproductive organs.
... same goes with Abraham and Sarah... and others...

I never advocated for everyone to practice permanent abstinence
I think you imagine me to be saying and meaning more than I have.

Do you also find the statements of Paul on abstinence and marriage (1 Corinthians 7) to be problematic ?

Forbidden to have sexual relations in the presence of Logos/Torah? Superstition.
The Logos made sex - albeit we must be careful to use it as prescribed

Jewish pious practice of the 1st c. was not always and only superstition, and knowing this pious practice assists moderns to understand a worldview they do not share.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do find it ironic, that sometimes that same people who fall back on "it's not in the bible, therefore it's not true" cling to the idea that Mary had other children, even though it is clearly not stated anywhere. The brother issue is completely unrelated because it concerns their relationship to Jesus, not Mary.

Duh! Not clearly stated anywhere? How about five distinct passages in three gospels where it clearly talks about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus and even gives the names of the brothers? Of course you will say that the writers really didn't mean to say that at all, but that they really meant to say perhaps the disciples of Jesus (my mother, sisters, and brothers), or his cousins (see Thekla for that device), or the children of Joseph who bore no relation to Jesus Christ at all (see the Catholic church for that whopper).

To add insult to injury, every single English translation of these passages calls these individual brothers and sisters. All of the Catholic and Orthodox translations do this, as well as all other translations. Those, poor, ignorant Catholic and Orthodox translators. My heart goes out to them for the enormous deception they have foisted upon those of us who have the temerity to read the Bible - and believe it.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Brothers is a reasonable translation, but does not cover the sense of the term in Greek - nor are modern English speakers given to more closely considering its actual Scriptural and secular usage in the 1st century, nor the cultural understanding of that era.

Quite honestly, Its either you are having lots of fun with me, or you are blind, or chose to willingly ignore the truth staring your down! Its like you are saying that most, if not all of the translators of the Bible are wrong despite of their knowledge of Greek.
The more rope I give you the more you hang yourself with it. Your denial of reality is blatantly obvious to me. You chose to ignore the fact that most, if not all the uses of the word adelphos in the NT means biological brothers, half or full.
Your methods of interpretation and application are identical to that of the JWs, and many other cults, and anti-Christian "scholars" who try to disprove the basics of Christianity through unconventional, and illogical translations, and interpretations of the scriptures, thus commitming "perfect" contextomy.
I have read and considered all of your arguments. With rare exception, your arguments are clearly based on denial, misinterpretation, and ignoring the clear facts set before you.
I notice you are EO. That's cool. I honestly have never attended an EO church. Recently I have wanted to attend an EO to experience their style of service. I have also recently considered becoming part of the EO church because there are some things I see that I just plain like about EO. However, if your interpretations of scripture as you have presented it here in this thread is in any way reflective of the teachings of the EO church, then obviously they are deceived. If you indeed represent the EO position on this matter, then I am turned off completely from the EO church!

That said, please give me a clear example in the NT (scripture and verse please) of a time when adelphos is used which clearly refers to cousins.

I know you gave me an example of the Greek translation of the Hebrew, which is more or less a "hearsay" argument.

We are speaking of NT times, and NT usage.

But honestly, if it all hung on that one word, then your argument can have more significance. But the fact that Mary didn't remain a virgin is based on many, many scriptures that all paint a clear "big picture". So perhaps if it were just one word, or one verse then the argument could be viewed as possible. But since there are so many scriptures that paint this picture, It makes it much harder for you to prove otherwise.

In other words, even if you were to prove that adelphos clearly means cousins, there are still a multitude of other scriptures that you need to deal with that point to the marriage and subsequent offspring of Mary.

But honestly, without any form of contextomy, the fact the overwhelming majority of uses of adelphos, especially in the context it was used, denoted bio-brothers.

Believe me, if I find any scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin all her life, I would gladly herald it from the rooftop!

But there is so much evidence contrary to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. There are a lot of points I never mentioned... and other scriptures and facts that I never mentioned.

For example:
In Luke 2:7 it says that Jesus was her firstborn son. (&#965;&#7985;&#972;&#957; &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#972;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#957.
This inherently means that she had more children. This Greek word is used when other children follow.
If Jesus was her one and only child, "&#965;&#7985;&#972;&#957; &#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#8134;" would have been used. But that is not the case.
And this just adds more resonance to all the other scriptures that say that Jesus in fact had many other brothers and sisters born through Mary.

Really, Thekla, it doesn't take a Greek scholar to figure this out. It is really simple.

It just makes no sense that God wouldn't clearly tell Joseph not to Marry her.
And it just doesn't make sense that God would tease Joseph by saying more or less, "you can promise to marry her, but you can't get married"
And it just doesn't make sense that God would tell Joseph that its ok to marry her...
..etc...etc...etc... and give me a break about the words "take" and "wife". For flippin' sakes! Its either you are blind to the context in which it was spoken, or you are playing games.

So yeah...
I met this girl (God said nothing)
We got engaged (God said nothing)
I find something in her life that looks really suspicious. Therefore, my soul is in turmoil, wrestling with the inevitable - nullification the engagement and separation. Do I marry her, or do I "put her away". Perhaps I can "put her away" secretly, thus shielding her from public disgrace.
As I am wrestling with this in my soul an angel appears to me!
"Don't be afraid to take her to the census!" the angel proclaims!
I was so relieved that I got a reply from heaven in the midst of my dilemma.
So I took her to the census... and I lived happily ever after without following through with my pledge to marry her!

...like... hello?... that makes perfect sense doesn't it?
oh, yeah... let me help you with that answer in case you don't know.
The answer is a clear and obvious NO!

Revised story (that makes much more sense in context):
I met this girl
We got engaged
I find something in her life that looks really suspicious. Therefore, my soul is in turmoil, wrestling with the inevitable - nullification the engagement and separation.
As I am wrestling with this in my soul and angel appears to me!
"Don't be afraid to take her to be your wife!"
I am relieved that I finally got an answer from heaven.
When the time was right we got married
And oh yeah... first comes love... then comes marriage... then comes my wife with a baby carriage! Bless the Lord for blessing us according to His word - with many children!
We lived happily ever after

This said, I fully embrace the searching of Scripture for understanding and for confirmation -- which is exactly what I have done in this case. I have put aside both positions, and have prayed and then studied assiduously. I have come to the conclusion that the Scriptures do not offer any proof that Mary had other children.

Excuse me, but come out from the false Greek definition fog and open your eyes! Right now you can't see the forest for the trees.

2. I have argued only from Scripture, and the search of Scriptures.
You are welcome to think what you like, nor am I interested in convincing you of anything. What I am presenting is evidence only from Scripture. And the evidence from Scripture demonstrates that to come to the conclusion that Mary bore more than Jesus, had more than one child, relies on extra-Scriptural assumptions.

Put it this way. I did not come from a church going family. I was completely "unchurched". I read the Bible for myself, and also studied Greek and Hebrew. I want the truth.
Without any biased baggage, without any church background influencing one way or the other on the subject it is very clear to me that Mary became Joseph's wife and had several other children.
My wife, also, as I mentioned before, had no church background. She knew nothing of Christianity, or Mary, or anything like that. With that unbiased, un-brainwashed background she too read the Bible for herself and came to the same conclusion as I have. In fact, she was shocked to hear that some people believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life!
Also consider the fact that most, if not all translators, who are more versed in NT Greek than you or I, have translated these passages contrary to the way you say they should be translated. Does that say something to you?

Why would God give us the English translation of the Bible that clearly paints a picture of Mary being a very, very privileged woman who carried the Lord Jesus and then got married, as promised, and as any blessed couple, had many children? Why?

In fact, why would God give us the Greek manuscripts, that clearly paints a picture of Mary being a very, very privileged woman who carried the Lord Jesus and then got married, as promised, and as any blessed couple, had many children? Why?

Why would God hide the "truth" deep beneath the surface of logical thinking... deep beneath the limitations of translations... deep into the Greek "definitions"? He didn't hide the other important truths like that. In fact a child can read and understand the Bible. That is the way God made it. Why would he?

It takes an "intellectual" to pull out the electron microscope and look at the atomic matter of the bark, proving that it is not a forest when all along if he drop the stupid electron microscope and step back and open his eyes he will see he is in the midst of a forest!

So you are saying that one needs to know Greek to agree with you? Yet there multitudes of Greek scholars who are very knowledgeable with NT Greek who disagree with your doctrine, and your interpretations, and your application thereof. I guess you are saying that you know some "secret code" that God choses not to make plain, and that many Greek scholars don't see?
Or perhaps you need to step back, because you are not seeing the forest for the trees!

I'm not sure what you are calling a "rabbit trail", nor why you choose that characterization. Nor why you mention the RC practice of "chanting "Hail Mary".

Just had to say it knowing that sadly, there are so many people engaged in this practice.

You chose a limited number of Scriptures, and have thus skipped my request to you -- which was to consider every verse using the term "ews". Greek does not have the equivalent of the English preposition, and ews, used as a conjunction or an adverb, roughly covers a number of English concepts.

Freakin' bang my head against the wall!
I told you clearly that I am aware that there are a small percentage of cases where "until" is a good English translation of ews, but the vast majority of the time the English word "until" is synonymous with ews. As you saw in my partial list of examples it would be absurd to define ews the way you are proposing. Translating it any other way would be trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

But the central point is this - neither in Greek (ews), nor in English (until) is the condition described by ews/until necessarily reversed after the time frame mentioned. And in many verses using ews, the condition is not reversed, or is not known to be reversed. In those instances where it is changed/reversed, it is known to be because more information is given.
So the onus is on you to point to the verse/s that demonstrate that the condition of Joseph "not knowing" Mary was changed.

Hokey flippin' cow!
Wake up!

Ok... put it this way... (you must be having fun with me, because I refuse to think you are that dull)...

Let me give you a verse from my book.

"I was engaged to a wonderful girl, but I didn't have sex until I came back from Afghanistan."
Don't be saying that I had sex with er because I didn't say that. I just told the truth: I didn't have sex until I got back from Afghanistan.
I know I didn't say that I had sex with her. I just said that I didn't have sex with her until I got back...
So don't tell anyone that I had sex with her, because I didn't say that. In fact, prove that there ever was a time that I had sex with her. Because I didn't explicitly say that I had sex her her. I just said that I didn't have sex with her until after I came back. So there. Prove it!

Once again, ridiculous! (Actually it should be capitalized).

Hey, by the way, I didn't speak to my wife this morning until I got out of bed.
Don't be saying that I spoke to my wife, because I didn't say that I spoke to her. I just said that I didn't speak to her until I got out of bed.
Stupid argument. period.

There is also the matter of Mary's response that she is "not knowing a man" in a verb form only used for an ongoing (not time sensitive) condition. Ie, her "not knowing a man" is said in a tense that means always.

Yeah, yeah, Mary told the angel that she never knew a man, is not knowing a man, and will never know a man ever in the future. And that is why she is pregnant today!
...whatever... once again such a response, emphasizing an eternal condition in this context just doesn't make sense. There is no connotation of eternal abstinence here.

The angel appeared to Mary and said, "... you are pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and you will bear a son..."
"I am a virgin", Mary replied, "How can I be pregnant?"
"Yeah, by the way", Mary continued, "I will not have sex with a man in the future. So then how can I be pregnant now?"

yeah,whatever, Thekla, makes sense to me (shaking my head)

I don't recall saying "never used as such", or making a similar statement.

Check the record.

Also, you still haven't answered my question:
Why does Mary have to remain a virgin? honestly!
Is there any prophetic significance? I do see it. help me out
Is there any significance in regards to Jesus? I don't see it.
Does it mean anything to God's plan for humanity?

I mean if someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be born of a virgin I could write a book about it.
I mean if someone asked me why Jesus had to die. I could write a book in reply
If someone asked me why Jesus had to be raised from the dead, I would have a lot to say in reply.... All of which would include fulfilling of prophecy, and the plan of salvation.

The entire life of Jesus from conception, to birth, to life, to death, to resurrection, to ascention, to second coming is all proclaimed prophetically and emphatically throughout the OT. In fact, Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because in them you think is life. But those scriptures speak of Me!" Obviously Jesus was confirming that the OT is all about Him.
Do we see the virgin birth in the OT? A resounding YES!
Do we see the perpetual virgin of Mary in the OT? A resounding NO!
Why? Because it is a false doctrine.

So remains my question:
Why would Mary have to remain a virgin and put an eternal pause on her betrothal?

Obviously in the early church, from the book of Acts through Revelation, little to no mention of Mary proves that this doctrine, and the over-emphasis of Mary came at a later date - proving that it never was a part of the word of God, the worship of God, the practice of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus, and the teaching of His apostles.
Its quite clear! Hello?

If there is no reasonable, prophetic, or clear reason for the EV of Mary in God's plan for humanity, then I must conclude that someone, somewhere down the line fell into false doctrine leading to idolatry, and many believers, and many of the saints followed suit!

 

[Thekla]

Duh! Not clearly stated anywhere? How about five distinct passages in three gospels where it clearly talks about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus and even gives the names of the brothers? Of course you will say that the writers really didn't mean to say that at all, but that they really meant to say perhaps the disciples of Jesus (my mother, sisters, and brothers), or his cousins (see Thekla for that device), or the children of Joseph who bore no relation to Jesus Christ at all (see the Catholic church for that whopper).

To add insult to injury, every single English translation of these passages calls these individual brothers and sisters. All of the Catholic and Orthodox translations do this, as well as all other translations. Those, poor, ignorant Catholic and Orthodox translators. My heart goes out to them for the enormous deception they have foisted upon those of us who have the temerity to read the Bible - and believe it.

I don't recall saying that adelphos incontrovertibly meant "cousin", nor is careful reading/study and the conceptual and cultural sweep of a term a "device".

I have been looking for any Scriptural or secular examples where the term "adelphos" does not include an additional descriptive and does not find its relating referent in a common male. Do you know of any examples where this term refers back to a common female ?

Thank-you.

 

[Thekla]

Quite honestly, Its either you are having lots of fun with me, or you are blind, or chose to willingly ignore the truth staring your down! Its like you are saying that most, if not all of the translators of the Bible are wrong despite of their knowledge of Greek.
The more rope I give you the more you hang yourself with it. Your denial of reality is blatantly obvious to me. You chose to ignore the fact that most, if not all the uses of the word adelphos in the NT means biological brothers, half or full.

I see no need to narrow the definition of adelphos without further information that narrows the term to one meaning.
That you are willing to do so without Scriptural evidence, or knowledge of the language and culture, is your concern.

Your methods of interpretation and application are identical to that of the JWs, and many other cults, and anti-Christian "scholars" who try to disprove the basics of Christianity through unconventional, and illogical translations, and interpretations of the scriptures, thus commitming "perfect" contextomy.
I have read and considered all of your arguments. With rare exception, your arguments are clearly based on denial, misinterpretation, and ignoring the clear facts set before you.

You have failed to actually address the points I have made in support of your own argument; that does not warrant your comparing me to a "cultist" or detractor of Christianity. In fact, several detractors fail to consider the very elements I am using in Scriptural analysis, preferring instead to derive their conclusions from an artificially narrowed definition of terminology, and an insertion of their own views onto the text.

I notice you are EO. That's cool. I honestly have never attended an EO church. Recently I have wanted to attend an EO to experience their style of service. I have also recently considered becoming part of the EO church because there are some things I see that I just plain like about EO. However, if your interpretations of scripture as you have presented it here in this thread is in any way reflective of the teachings of the EO church, then obviously they are deceived. If you indeed represent the EO position on this matter, then I am turned off completely from the EO church!

This seems again to be a reliant on your emotions - as you would eschew analysis for a 'feeling'.

Nor have I "interpreted" Scripture per se, but have not agreed with your coming to conclusions that are not in evidence in Scripture.

That said, please give me a clear example in the NT (scripture and verse please) of a time when adelphos is used which clearly refers to cousins.

I don't know of any, and in fact many instances the term is used without giving further information. The actual relationship of Herod and Phillip, for example, is not described in Scripture but is known through the secular historical record.

I do not claim to know the narrowed meaning of adelphos anywhere in Scripture where a further description is not given.

I know you gave me an example of the Greek translation of the Hebrew, which is more or less a "hearsay" argument.

We are speaking of NT times, and NT usage.

How is the usage of Greek terms by Jews "hearsay" ?
But as you wish ....

But honestly, if it all hung on that one word, then your argument can have more significance. But the fact that Mary didn't remain a virgin is based on many, many scriptures that all paint a clear "big picture". So perhaps if it were just one word, or one verse then the argument could be viewed as possible. But since there are so many scriptures that paint this picture, It makes it much harder for you to prove otherwise

.

You have, thus far, not provided any.

In other words, even if you were to prove that adelphos clearly means cousins, there are still a multitude of other scriptures that you need to deal with that point to the marriage and subsequent offspring of Mary.

But honestly, without any form of contextomy, the fact the overwhelming majority of uses of adelphos, especially in the context it was used, denoted bio-brothers.

Can you point to any use of adelphos in Scripture that does not posit the relationship in a common male ?

Believe me, if I find any scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin all her life, I would gladly herald it from the rooftop!

But there is so much evidence contrary to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. There are a lot of points I never mentioned... and other scriptures and facts that I never mentioned.

I do question why you would broadcast that Mary had more children without Scriptural evidence that she did.

For example:
In Luke 2:7 it says that Jesus was her firstborn son. (&#965;&#7985;&#972;&#957; &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#972;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#957.
This inherently means that she had more children. This Greek word is used when other children follow.
If Jesus was her one and only child, "&#965;&#7985;&#972;&#957; &#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#8134;" would have been used. But that is not the case.
And this just adds more resonance to all the other scriptures that say that Jesus in fact had many other brothers and sisters born through Mary.

Prototokon is a medical and legal/religious term (see Exodus 13:2, Numbers 8:16).

Its equivalent, prima para, is used in modern medical practice, and is assigned to any women during her first pregnancy whether or not she plans to have other children. Just because one has a child that is the "first born" does not mean that one necessarily gives birth to other children.

As Luke says, it is the one who "opens the womb", and all the firstborn are to be dedicated to God.

 

[Thekla]

Really, Thekla, it doesn't take a Greek scholar to figure this out. It is really simple.

It just makes no sense that God wouldn't clearly tell Joseph not to Marry her.
And it just doesn't make sense that God would tease Joseph by saying more or less, "you can promise to marry her, but you can't get married"
And it just doesn't make sense that God would tell Joseph that its ok to marry her...
..etc...etc...etc... and give me a break about the words "take" and "wife". For flippin' sakes! Its either you are blind to the context in which it was spoken, or you are playing games.

I'm not "playing games".
I am not going beyond what is told in Scripture (which is the typical standard of many western Christians).

So yeah...
I met this girl (God said nothing)
We got engaged (God said nothing)
I find something in her life that looks really suspicious. Therefore, my soul is in turmoil, wrestling with the inevitable - nullification the engagement and separation. Do I marry her, or do I "put her away". Perhaps I can "put her away" secretly, thus shielding her from public disgrace.
As I am wrestling with this in my soul an angel appears to me!
"Don't be afraid to take her to the census!" the angel proclaims!
I was so relieved that I got a reply from heaven in the midst of my dilemma.
So I took her to the census... and I lived happily ever after without following through with my pledge to marry her!

...like... hello?... that makes perfect sense doesn't it?
oh, yeah... let me help you with that answer in case you don't know.
The answer is a clear and obvious NO!

Why must Joseph be like you ?
That is certainly not a Scriptural standard of argument.

Revised story (that makes much more sense in context):
I met this girl
We got engaged
I find something in her life that looks really suspicious. Therefore, my soul is in turmoil, wrestling with the inevitable - nullification the engagement and separation.
As I am wrestling with this in my soul and angel appears to me!
"Don't be afraid to take her to be your wife!"
I am relieved that I finally got an answer from heaven.
When the time was right we got married
And oh yeah... first comes love... then comes marriage... then comes my wife with a baby carriage! Bless the Lord for blessing us according to His word - with many children!
We lived happily ever after

Why are you basing your argument on what is not Scripture, but your own view ?

Excuse me, but come out from the false Greek definition fog and open your eyes! Right now you can't see the forest for the trees.

Put it this way. I did not come from a church going family. I was completely "unchurched". I read the Bible for myself, and also studied Greek and Hebrew. I want the truth.
Without any biased baggage, without any church background influencing one way or the other on the subject it is very clear to me that Mary became Joseph's wife and had several other children.
My wife, also, as I mentioned before, had no church background. She knew nothing of Christianity, or Mary, or anything like that. With that unbiased, un-brainwashed background she too read the Bible for herself and came to the same conclusion as I have. In fact, she was shocked to hear that some people believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life!
Also consider the fact that most, if not all translators, who are more versed in NT Greek than you or I, have translated these passages contrary to the way you say they should be translated. Does that say something to you?

I am a convert to the EO.
My father was a protestant minister, who was fluent in Koine Greek.
We had never discussed whether or not Mary had more children.

I investigated Scripture for myself, to see if there was indeed evidence in Scripture that Mary had more children. As you know, I did not find it.

Only after this search did I ask my father (he was not raised as a Christian, nor had gone to Church until his conversion to Christ) what he thought. He stated that he did not think that Mary had more children. (Neither, I have learned, did Martin Luther and many others well regarded among western Christians.)

Why would God give us the English translation of the Bible that clearly paints a picture of Mary being a very, very privileged woman who carried the Lord Jesus and then got married, as promised, and as any blessed couple, had many children? Why?

There are many English translations of Scripture, and not all of them agree verse to verse.

That one can conclude things not in evidence in Scripture when reading Scripture is not, however, surprising.

In fact, why would God give us the Greek manuscripts, that clearly paints a picture of Mary being a very, very privileged woman who carried the Lord Jesus and then got married, as promised, and as any blessed couple, had many children? Why?

But it doesn't ...

Why would God hide the "truth" deep beneath the surface of logical thinking... deep beneath the limitations of translations... deep into the Greek "definitions"? He didn't hide the other important truths like that. In fact a child can read and understand the Bible. That is the way God made it. Why would he?

As before, in Logic, the use of the term "until" does not demonstrate a change of condition. You can check Logic texts on this matter.

It takes an "intellectual" to pull out the electron microscope and look at the atomic matter of the bark, proving that it is not a forest when all along if he drop the stupid electron microscope and step back and open his eyes he will see he is in the midst of a forest!

So you are saying that one needs to know Greek to agree with you? Yet there multitudes of Greek scholars who are very knowledgeable with NT Greek who disagree with your doctrine, and your interpretations, and your application thereof. I guess you are saying that you know some "secret code" that God choses not to make plain, and that many Greek scholars don't see?
Or perhaps you need to step back, because you are not seeing the forest for the trees!

I do not claim to know a "secret code".
I have observed that you assume things not in evidence in Scripture are in Scripture because you assume them to be.

Just had to say it knowing that sadly, there are so many people engaged in this practice.


Freakin' bang my head against the wall!
I told you clearly that I am aware that there are a small percentage of cases where "until" is a good English translation of ews, but the vast majority of the time the English word "until" is synonymous with ews. As you saw in my partial list of examples it would be absurd to define ews the way you are proposing. Translating it any other way would be trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

The usage of ews includes roughly "as long as, while; till (until); in order that. for some time; till when."

Yes, it can be translated as until in these passages, and wouldn't make sense to translate as until in others. I requested that you consider all passages using ews. And I'm not sure what your point is -- until covers the time period mentioned in the sentence, but does not tell us what happens after that time period.

Hokey flippin' cow!
Wake up!

Ok... put it this way... (you must be having fun with me, because I refuse to think you are that dull)...

I really am not trying to "have fun with you".

I am relying on Scripture.

Let me give you a verse from my book.

"I was engaged to a wonderful girl, but I didn't have sex until I came back from Afghanistan."
Don't be saying that I had sex with er because I didn't say that. I just told the truth: I didn't have sex until I got back from Afghanistan.
I know I didn't say that I had sex with her. I just said that I didn't have sex with her until I got back...
So don't tell anyone that I had sex with her, because I didn't say that. In fact, prove that there ever was a time that I had sex with her. Because I didn't explicitly say that I had sex her her. I just said that I didn't have sex with her until after I came back. So there. Prove it!

This has nothing to do with Scripture.

Once again, ridiculous! (Actually it should be capitalized).

Hey, by the way, I didn't speak to my wife this morning until I got out of bed.
Don't be saying that I spoke to my wife, because I didn't say that I spoke to her. I just said that I didn't speak to her until I got out of bed.
Stupid argument. period.

When I say to my children, "Behave until I get back." am I telling them to misbehave after I return ?

Yeah, yeah, Mary told the angel that she never knew a man, is not knowing a man, and will never know a man ever in the future. And that is why she is pregnant today!
...whatever... once again such a response, emphasizing an eternal condition in this context just doesn't make sense. There is no connotation of eternal abstinence here.

It is a verb tense of condition, not time.
Check its use throughout the NT.

The angel appeared to Mary and said, "... you are pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and you will bear a son..."
"I am a virgin", Mary replied, "How can I be pregnant?"
"Yeah, by the way", Mary continued, "I will not have sex with a man in the future. So then how can I be pregnant now?"
yeah,whatever, Thekla, makes sense to me (shaking my head)

The angel did not say "you are pregnant" (present tense) but Scripture records the angel saying "you will conceive" (future tense).

The angel announces a future event to Mary who is betrothed.
Mary responds in a tense that describes a habitual condition which is not time-dependent nor referent.

Mary asks "how can this be (future tense) since (conjunction, not verb) I am not knowing ( ongoing condition) a man ?"

Check the record.

I've checked Scripture.

Also, you still haven't answered my question:
Why does Mary have to remain a virgin? honestly!
Is there any prophetic significance? I do see it. help me out
Is there any significance in regards to Jesus? I don't see it.
Does it mean anything to God's plan for humanity?

I mean if someone were to ask me why Jesus had to be born of a virgin I could write a book about it.
I mean if someone asked me why Jesus had to die. I could write a book in reply
If someone asked me why Jesus had to be raised from the dead, I would have a lot to say in reply.... All of which would include fulfilling of prophecy, and the plan of salvation.

The entire life of Jesus from conception, to birth, to life, to death, to resurrection, to ascention, to second coming is all proclaimed prophetically and emphatically throughout the OT. In fact, Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because in them you think is life. But those scriptures speak of Me!" Obviously Jesus was confirming that the OT is all about Him.
Do we see the virgin birth in the OT? A resounding YES!
Do we see the perpetual virgin of Mary in the OT? A resounding NO!
Why? Because it is a false doctrine.

So remains my question:
Why would Mary have to remain a virgin and put an eternal pause on her betrothal?

Obviously in the early church, from the book of Acts through Revelation, little to no mention of Mary proves that this doctrine, and the over-emphasis of Mary came at a later date - proving that it never was a part of the word of God, the worship of God, the practice of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus, and the teaching of His apostles.
Its quite clear! Hello?

I gave as much of a response as I am going to give -- as I said, it would likely take a great deal of time.

This discussion has already required a great deal of time, and I am not willing to add more ...

One might ask, why do you think it essential that Mary have more children ?

If there is no reasonable, prophetic, or clear reason for the EV of Mary in God's plan for humanity, then I must conclude that someone, somewhere down the line fell into false doctrine leading to idolatry, and many believers, and many of the saints followed suit!

I'm not sure how you make the connection with idolatry.

 

[Erose]

I read to be corrected. He fails. He fails because he knows the apostle James believed in Jesus prior to His death, while brother James did not believe until after His resurrection.

He fails because you have rejected it already. And from some of our debates in the past stubborness is a trait be both share.

Read his stuttering at chapter 16, though prior and after his assured eloquence. "possibly the case might be"
NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Don't see it. Looks straight forward to me.

The early church knew James the greater (son of Zebedee), James the less (son of Alpheaus), and James the just (son of Joseph).

Do you have a quote somewhere claiming that James the Just was actually the son of Joseph or Mary? Just asking haven't found one.

Decretum Gelasianum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation) (see section V)

It refers to an infancy gospel, but which one? You know that there are more than one infancy Gospel don't you?

Follow through Jerome's references to Tertullian and Africanus.

To where? The reference goes nowhere. So I ask again provide early Church fathers who supports your claim that Mary had other children besides Jesus?

Maybe. Or maybe his sons were like him.

What do you mean by this?

I'd have to see the reference to Augustine teaching the cousin theory.

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XXII (Augustine) par 35

CHURCH FATHERS: Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) par 2

Here is one referring to the chasteness of the Holy Family.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I (Augustine) chapter 12-13

Didn't Jerome "provide" the RC OT canon? I was hinting that he knew he "shouldn't", but did anyway. In any event, my agreeing with Jerome on X and disagreeing with him on Y is no different from what your own RC does. There's not one RC person in history, but traditions picked from here and there. (If you ask what church person is akin to my view in history apart from scripture, I'd point to Polycarp.)

My point confirmed. Thank you.

 

[Standing Up]

He fails because you have rejected it already. And from some of our debates in the past stubborness is a trait be both share.

Don't see it. Looks straight forward to me.

Jerome sputters and stumbles. He must because of what's left of his honesty. He knows James the less, the apostle, believed in Jesus before death. James the just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, did not believe in Jesus per scripture before death. He knows this. He knows his theory is bogus, spurious, contradictory to scripture and tradition. He says with as much conviction as possible "possibly the case might be", except it isn't. Poor Jerome. We knew him well.

Do you have a quote somewhere claiming that James the Just was actually the son of Joseph or Mary? Just asking haven't found one.

Of course. Here's one.

... that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),&#8212;the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.31473147 [Ibid., b. xx. c. ix. § 1. S.] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine ...
ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

It refers to an infancy gospel, but which one? You know that there are more than one infancy Gospel don't you?

Yes, and PoJ was known by the name of the book rejected.

To where? The reference goes nowhere. So I ask again provide early Church fathers who supports your claim that Mary had other children besides Jesus?

In addition, to Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Africanus, and others, I would add Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and, quite possibly, "Ignatius", (though I won't add the latter officially).

I will start a new thread on scripture/tradition through Martyr, Irenaeus, and the others.

Remember there was c50-300 only TWO theories about who the brothers of Jesus were.

1) Sons of Joseph/Mary--scripture/tradition
2) Sons of Joseph/previous wife--docetic tradition

PS. As to Augustine, he and Jerome lived at the same time. As far as I know, everyone attributes the cousin theory to Jerome.

 

[Standing Up]

Duh! Not clearly stated anywhere? How about five distinct passages in three gospels where it clearly talks about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus and even gives the names of the brothers? Of course you will say that the writers really didn't mean to say that at all, but that they really meant to say perhaps the disciples of Jesus (my mother, sisters, and brothers), or his cousins (see Thekla for that device), or the children of Joseph who bore no relation to Jesus Christ at all (see the Catholic church for that whopper).

To add insult to injury, every single English translation of these passages calls these individual brothers and sisters. All of the Catholic and Orthodox translations do this, as well as all other translations. Those, poor, ignorant Catholic and Orthodox translators. My heart goes out to them for the enormous deception they have foisted upon those of us who have the temerity to read the Bible - and believe it.

Exactly. Moreover, we now have the same tradition of this that existed after the apostles. Paul said abide the traditions whether written or oral.

Lastly, we also know the source of the false tradition.