Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[Renton405]

I know, we've just about beat this into the ground. But, I have some questions and instead of further confusing another OP, I decided to start my own.

If you are tired of the topic or feel the discussion is fruitless, feel free not to participate.

I've never really gotten into a real in depth discussion on this subject. Because of this I'm sure the information I am looking for has been given here but I've missed it.

So, with all of that said. Here are my questions. How do proponents of Mary's Perpetual Virginity explain away these verses:

Matt 1:24; Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Matt 1:25; And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is quite a heavy indication that once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph came together as husband and wife. I admit it is not definitive evidence, so please explain how we can infer that they NEVER came together as husband and wife.


Second are these verses:

Matt 13:55; Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


Matt 13:56; And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

Okay, I'm do know that the argument has to do with the word used for "brethren, brothers and sisters." So explain to me what this argument entails. Is the word used the only word that would work in these verses? Is there only one word that identifies "brothers/sisters/cousins?" If not, what other word would work? Does the Catholic bible use a different word?

Anyhow, participate if you wish or ignore the post if you prefer . . . . .

You need to read more on early christianity. Brothers and sisters said in those days meant alot of different meanings than what people would think today..


Read the protoevanglium of james of you want outer evidence.
Read up on the miracle at Fatima. And then ask yourself. Can 70,000 people ALL be wrong??

As well as the hundreds upon hundreds of Early Church Fathers who claimed she was a virgin her whole life..

A virgin is more purer than a non virgin. Since God is the purest of all it is natural he would chose a virgin..A non-virgin does not go well with Gods ultimate majesty and pure grace. For God to bear his son, it would be natural for God to chose the most pure, faithful woman he can. Ask yourself, why did God chose Mary??


If Mary really had other children, they would have been followed by the early fathers. And the church would have recorded it. Yet there is not one recording of a blood line son or daughter of Mary. Not one. Don't you think if mary had children the early church fathers/apostles would have come in contact with them and recorded it??...However there is much evidence claiming otherwise in scripture and outside scripture(protoevangelium)..The evidence outweighs the claim..




Read Matthew 1:23

BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.



THE virgin..

The messiah will be born of a virgin in bethlehem. Period.

EVEN IF it could be proven that Mary had no other children (and it cannot), that does NOT prove at all that she never shared marital intimacies

jOSIAH! It it proven that the BIBLE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MARY LOSING HER VIRGINITY!! Yet you claim sola scriptura, the sole authority. Since the bible says nothing about Mary being married again or losing her virginity then it goes in accordance with Sola Scriptura. And yet you say this, that maybe OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE that something about Mary could be true?? hmmmm... It sounds like you use sola scriptura when you can when supporting a interperatation of yours, but when something like this arises you take a 360 on the sola scriptura theory..


And one last thing:

Why did Jesus while he was hanging on the cross say to John to take Mary in as his Mother?? Surely if Mary had other siblings he wouldn't have said this..

 

[Fireinfolding]

racer wrote

So, you think there was no appropriate word to signify "cousins" to the exclusion of brothers and sisters?

Correct.

Your sister () in Christ,

Im no good at original languages, but I am curious here (in accordance with this reasoning)

For example here...

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

Why say "cousin" (of mary) in regards to Elizabeth here but exclude it elsewhere? Like adopting it to one place and not the next?

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

racer wrote

Im no good at original languages, but I am curious here (in accordance with this reasoning)

For example here...

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

Why say "cousin" (of mary) in regards to Elizabeth here but exclude it elsewhere? Like adopting it to one place and not the next?

Peace

Fireinfolding

cousin:

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

suggenes (Strong's 4773) occurs 12 times in 12 verses:

4773. suggenes soong-ghen-ace' from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:--cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman). 4862. sun soon a primary preposition denoting union; with or together (but much closer than 3326 or 3844), i.e. by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc 1085. genos ghen'-os from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

[SIZE=+0](Young) Luke 1:36 and lo, [the] Elisabeth, thy kinswoman/relative/cousin/[/SIZE]suggenhV <4773>, [SIZE=+0]she also hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her who was called barren; [/SIZE]
cousin
New Testament Greek Definition:
4773 suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}
from 4862 and 1085; TDNT - 7:736,1097; adj
AV - kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1; 12
1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ever notice "the virgin birth" is not even mentioned by Paul in regards to that which he delivered? He recounts what he first preached 1Cr 15:1-11


This is interesting too.... you can find Mary (as one woman) being shown as a representative of "the many" here.

The "Singular" become the "plural" through which Paul further expounds this throughout scripture.

Heres what is said in regards to her.

Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy OWN SOUL also,) THAT the thoughts of MANY HEARTS may be revealed.

Paul doesn't use Mary's name. In fact Paul dont even mention the virgin birth save only to present "them" as a chaste virgin to Christ 2Cr 11:2. Paul (a minister of "the mysteries of God" having the "light of" the gospel uses Mary (showing a singular Woman) as a similitude. He expounds a spiritual truth in relation to "a woman" (representative of the many) made under "the law", and the "adoption of sons"

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a WOMAN, made under the law, To redeem THEM that were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption of SONS.

I just thought that was interesting.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Fireinfolding]

cousin:

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

suggenes (Strong's 4773) occurs 12 times in 12 verses:

4773. suggenes soong-ghen-ace' from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:--cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman). 4862. sun soon a primary preposition denoting union; with or together (but much closer than 3326 or 3844), i.e. by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc 1085. genos ghen'-os from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

[SIZE=+0](Young) Luke 1:36 and lo, [the] Elisabeth, thy kinswoman/relative/cousin/[/SIZE]suggenhV <4773>, [SIZE=+0]she also hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her who was called barren; [/SIZE]
cousin
New Testament Greek Definition:
4773 suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}
from 4862 and 1085; TDNT - 7:736,1097; adj
AV - kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1; 12
1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

Thanks LittleLambofJesus

Dang bro this looking up stuff is way too technical for me sometimes LOL Im always glad your around lol

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul doesn't use Mary's name. In fact Paul dont even mention the virgin birth save only to present "them" as a chaste virgin to Christ 2Cr 11:2. Paul (a minister of "the mysteries of God" having the "light of" the gospel uses Mary (showing a singular Woman) as a similitude. He expounds a spiritual truth in relation to "a woman" (representative of the many) made under "the law", and the "adoption of sons"

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a WOMAN, made under the law, To redeem THEM that were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption of SONS.

I just thought that was interesting.

Peace

Fireinfolding

Nice post and very revealing.
I noticed when using an interlinear that where most translations say "as supposed" concerning Joseph, it appear to mean "as to Law"

http://www.scripture4all.org/
Uses the W-H MS.

LUKE 3:23 And he was, the Jesus, beginning as if of years 30 being son as was to Law.

3543. nomizo nom-id'-zo from 3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or regard:-- suppose, thing, be wont

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli

(Greek NT - W-H ) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn ihsouV arcomenoV wsei etwn triakonta wn uioV wV enomizeto iwshf tou hli

(Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli

 

[Fireinfolding]

Nice post and very revealing.
I noticed when using an interlinear that where most translations say "as supposed" concerning Joseph, it appear to mean "as to Law"

http://www.scripture4all.org/
Uses the W-H MS.

LUKE 3:23 And he was, the Jesus, beginning as if of years 30 being son as was to Law.

3543. nomizo nom-id'-zo from 3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or regard:-- suppose, thing, be wont

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli

(Greek NT - W-H ) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn ihsouV arcomenoV wsei etwn triakonta wn uioV wV enomizeto iwshf tou hli

(Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli

Wow!! No kidding? LittleLambofJesus sometimes I wish I could yank you off this forum and stick you in a private room and pick your brain

This is kool, Im so glad you pointed that out!

Im trying to see (or understand) the spiritual truth through Pauls representative in regards to Him (Joseph) who did not "know her" till she brought forth Jesus. Spiritually speaking it is "Christ in US" our hope of glory. Christ "formed in us" (Woman with child) who redeems us from the law (the law saith) into Sonship (hearing what the Spirit says)...

I know somethings in there but Im not catching the full scope of it.

Thanks for sharing that

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I know somethings in there but Im not catching the full scope of it.

Thanks for sharing that

Peace

Fireinfolding

Don't feel alone LOL.
There is also this greek word used for "supposed/think". It all depends on context and what the author was trying to convey to the reader and that can be a difficult challenge at times.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

dokeo (Strong's 1380) occurs 66 times in 62 verses: Page 1, verses 1 - 25

AV - think 33, seem 13, suppose 7, seem good 3, please 2, misc 5; 63

 

[Fireinfolding]

Another thing just came to my rememberance. Mary (His mother) if you notice... the crowd regarded his mother and brethren after the flesh. Jesus hears this and redefines that which is regarded "naturally" into that which is known spiritually.

Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, (((Behold ))) thy mother and thy brethren (((without ))) seek for thee.

Mark 3:33 And HE answered them, saying, WHO is my mother and my brethren?

Mark 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, (((BEHOLD))) my mother and my brethren

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Now in Mathew the same thing is shown but another verse for further clarification.

In Mat 12:49 And he stretched for his hands toward his DISCIPLES, and said, ((( BEHOLD ))) my mother AND my brethren!

Again the "One" can be reshown as "the many" and is spiritually redefined by Christ.

Peace

Fireinfolding

P.S (edited in) Your fast responding LittleLambofJesus, I post and find you posted before me LOL. I got YOU perfectly and you confirm so much for me lol

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Another thing just came to my rememberance. Mary (His mother) if you notice... the crowd regarded his mother and brethren after the flesh. Jesus hears this and redefines that which is regarded "naturally" into that which is known spiritually.

Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, (((Behold ))) thy mother and thy brethren (((without ))) seek for thee.

Mark 3:33 And HE answered them, saying, WHO is my mother and my brethren?

Hi. Interesting.
I am going to try and find the thread an atheist started awhile back concerning the family of Jesus calling him "possesed and crazy".
It was a bad translation of passages that made it appear that way. I am going to hunt it up. Sheeesh, I found it and it was a pretty heated thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3291089-did-mary-know-jesus-was-the-messiah.html
Did Mary know jesus was the messiah
Page 61 of the GA board.

3844. para par-ah' a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of):-

I believe it is in the genitive case here:

[ISA] Mark 3:19 and Judas Iscariot who even betrayed Him and He is coming into/toward a house 20 and is coming together again the throng, so as no to be enabled them no yet bread to be eating 21 And hearing the ones near/para[#3844] of Him, came out to take hold of Him , for they said that He was astonished/bewildered [#1839]. ..................... 22 and the scribes who [are] from Jerusalem having come down, said--`He hath Beelzeboul,' and--`By the ruler of the demons he doth cast out the demons.' .........31 Then come do his brethren and mother, and standing without, they sent unto him, calling him, 32 and a multitude was sitting about him,

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

...bump

Forgive me...

 

[Iollain]

This is crazy there are so many Marys:

Alphaeus had sons James the less , Judas, Levi, Joses mother was a Mary

Zebedee had James(the great) and john, mother was Salome (sons of thunder)


Mary Magdalene

Martha and Mary, sisters of Lazarus.(This Mary annointed Jesus's feet with ointment and wiped them with her hair)

Mary the mother of Jesus


Act 12:12 And when he had considered [the thing], he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.



Mat 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Mat 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

Jhn 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.



..........This Cleophas must be another name they called Alphaeus, or is it another Mary still?

This is what i can figure out so far, i hope.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My perspective...

Read the protoevanglium of james of you want outer evidence.

The REJECTED, NONcanonical, NONinspired book of the Protoevanglium of James offers zero support for the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

In another thread, I quoted - verbatim - the entire book. The whole thing. And invited the Catholics to show where it says Mary remained a virgin her entire life. No one did because it doesn't say that.

Read up on the miracle at Fatima. And then ask yourself. Can 70,000 people ALL be wrong??

1. How does such substantiate that Mary and Joseph never - not once, ever - lovingly shared intimacies with each other within the supremely private and sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage?


2. So your substantiation for this dogma is that 70,000 can't be wrong? What about the 1 billion Muslims?

A virgin is more purer than a non virgin. Since God is the purest of all it is natural he would chose a virgin..A non-virgin does not go well with Gods ultimate majesty and pure grace. For God to bear his son, it would be natural for God to chose the most pure, faithful woman he can. Ask yourself, why did God chose Mary??

1. You must be aware that the Dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary is an altogether different subject. We all agree she was a virgin at the announciation and at the birth of Jesus.


2. I disagree with this rubric that DOGMA can be founded and substantiated by asking a question. Why is their air? Bill Cosby says so we have something to fill balls with. So, does that make that answer dogma? I hope you get my point, LOL. I find your epistemology here very lacking.

If Mary really had other children, they would have been followed by the early fathers. And the church would have recorded it. Yet there is not one recording of a blood line son or daughter of Mary. Not one. Don't you think if mary had children the early church fathers/apostles would have come in contact with them and recorded it??...However there is much evidence claiming otherwise in scripture and outside scripture(protoevangelium)..The evidence outweighs the claim.

The "claim" (as you call Catholic dogma!!) is that Mary and Joseph were deprived of the normal, blessed, loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the supremely private sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage THROUGHOUT MARY'S ENTIRE LIFE, she was a PERPETUAL virgin (thus the title of the dogma). That's the "claim" (to use your word). And the CC insists it's a teaching of the greatest certainly and highest importance.


Of course, if it can be reasonably substantiated that she had other children, that would make this dogma false. But even if such cannot be substantiated, it offers no support for the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary - unless you can substantiate that every single act of such sharing results in a child specificly mentioned as such in the Bible, and I think we agree that would be pretty hard to substantiate, I think we are all aware that NOT every such act results in a child so specificly mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all (no special knowledge of biology is required to make that arguement completely uncompelling).

JOSIAH! It it proven that the BIBLE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MARY LOSING HER VIRGINITY!! Yet you claim sola scriptura, the sole authority. Since the bible says nothing about Mary being married again or losing her virginity then it goes in accordance with Sola Scriptura. And yet you say this, that maybe OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE that something about Mary could be true?? hmmmm... It sounds like you use sola scriptura when you can when supporting a interperatation of yours, but when something like this arises you take a 360 on the sola scriptura theory..

1. Again, you seem to be getting our positions reversed. YOU are the one with the dogma. It's the CC that insists, as the highest importance, that Mary and Joseph never "did it." It's the CC that insists, with the greatest certainty, that it KNOWS this supremely private detail of their intimate life and that it's most important. I have no dogma about this issue at all. As I've noted, the holy inerrant written Word of God is entirely silent on this supremely private aspect of their lives together - and so am I. No Protestant denomination known to me has any dogma at all concerning how often Mary and Joseph shared (or didn't share) sexual intimacies. We have nothing to defend about this. We have nothing to substantiate regarding this. We have no dogma on this. The Catholic denomination does. Therefore, it's YOUR obsession, YOUR dogma, and YOUR issue to defend and substantiate.


2. Ah, but I AM following Sola Scriptura. The Bible is (quite understandably) respectfully silent about the issue of how often Mary and Joseph did it after Jesus was born. And so am I. I know of no Protestant denomination that has any official dogma about this issue at all. Protestants (as individuals) are certainly welcomed to have pious opinions on this (and some Lutherans have the pious opinion that Mary did remain a virgin, as did Luther) but individual pious opinions is a whole other animal that an official denominational dogma.


3. I reject your epistemology that if the Bible doesn't (in your opinion) make a teaching impossible, then it must be dogma. If a teacher said that Jesus had 50 children and pink hair, does the Bible specificly say that's not so? Nope. Does that make it dogmatically true? Nope. I reject your epistemology on that.




My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rowan]

racer wrote





Im no good at original languages, but I am curious here (in accordance with this reasoning)

For example here...

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

Why say "cousin" (of mary) in regards to Elizabeth here but exclude it elsewhere? Like adopting it to one place and not the next?

Peace

Fireinfolding

All I can say in reply that this practice of including the less precise word is not unheard of. For instance, my NKJV says:

36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.

The English Standard Version:

36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.



The American Standard Version:



36 And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.


I tend to use the more classical versions, myself.

 

[Fireinfolding]

All I can say in reply that this practice of including the less precise word is not unheard of. For instance, my NKJV says:

36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.

The English Standard Version:

36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.



The American Standard Version:



36 And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.


I tend to use the more classical versions, myself.

Thanks Ro, Looking at the "contrasted comparisons" below could it mean cousin? That in "maroon color" are a couple of examples of the same word (expressed differently). Luke 21:16 shows it contrasted against three others. Luke 1:59 contrasts it again one other not shown in Luke 21:16

Luke 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and freinds

Luke 1:59 And her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Then ofcourse this one specifically

Luke 1:61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The REJECTED, NONcanonical, NONinspired book of the Protoevanglium of James offers zero support for the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Bump.......Interested threads with some nice translation examples.

 

[Rowan]

Luke 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and freinds

NKJV - kinsfolks = relatives.

In this verse, it's really irrelevant to specify which family members they are talking about, IMO, since Jesus is talking about familial betrayal. It could mean "cousin" just as much as it could mean "uncle".

Luke 1:59 And her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

NKJV - cousins = relatives.

It could mean cousins, but I honestly don't see the need to get specific, unless the term "cousins" was meant just as vaguely. What version are you reading from, if I may ask?

Luke 1:61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

NKJV - thy kindred = relatives.

Are these all from the same version? I'm wondering what's the basis for being specific, then vague (if I'm understanding the version's use of term, that is).

 

[thereselittleflower]

I know, we've just about beat this into the ground. But, I have some questions and instead of further confusing another OP, I decided to start my own.

If you are tired of the topic or feel the discussion is fruitless, feel free not to participate.

I've never really gotten into a real in depth discussion on this subject. Because of this I'm sure the information I am looking for has been given here but I've missed it.

So, with all of that said. Here are my questions. How do proponents of Mary's Perpetual Virginity explain away these verses:

Matt 1:24; Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Matt 1:25; And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is quite a heavy indication that once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph came together as husband and wife. I admit it is not definitive evidence, so please explain how we can infer that they NEVER came together as husband and wife.

Hi racer . . . . I am sure this has been dealt with already, as I have not read the thread, but in case this answer hasn't been given yet:

The word "until" is a word in Greek that speaks of the time in consideration not of what happens after that time. It has no meaning one way or the other regarding what happens after the point in time is reached it has in mind.

We see this played out in other uses of this word. For instance:

2Sa 6:23 And there was no child to Michal the daughter of Saul until the day of her death.​

To mandate that the word "until" means that after the point it takes us to is reached, the situation changes would mandate that Michal had children AFTER her death . .

Of course that is nonsensical, and so it can't mandate such a meaning.

The verse you quoted simply means this was the state of affairs up to this point . . it says nothing about the state of affairs after this point and implies nothing one way or the other . . .

Second are these verses:

Matt 13:55; Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


Matt 13:56; And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

Okay, I'm do know that the argument has to do with the word used for "brethren, brothers and sisters." So explain to me what this argument entails. Is the word used the only word that would work in these verses? Is there only one word that identifies "brothers/sisters/cousins?" If not, what other word would work? Does the Catholic bible use a different word?

Anyhow, participate if you wish or ignore the post if you prefer . . . . .

It has to do with the various langauges involved . . Aramaic being translated into Hebrew and Greek . . my undertanding is that in Aramaic there are not as many words to use as in Greek, and, as is common in translations, a word that usually translates a word in another langauge so that the full range of meaning in the original language is brought forward as much as possible many times means using a different word than one would normally use for a particular meaning . .

The Greek word used is used of kinsman . . near and remote . . . There is nothing that mandates an understanding that these were blood brothers and sisters from Mary's womb.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ever notice "the virgin birth" is not even mentioned by Paul in regards to that which he delivered? He recounts what he first preached 1Cr 15:1-11


This is interesting too.... you can find Mary (as one woman) being shown as a representative of "the many" here.

The "Singular" become the "plural" through which Paul further expounds this throughout scripture.

Heres what is said in regards to her.

Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy OWN SOUL also,) THAT the thoughts of MANY HEARTS may be revealed.

Paul doesn't use Mary's name. In fact Paul dont even mention the virgin birth save only to present "them" as a chaste virgin to Christ 2Cr 11:2. Paul (a minister of "the mysteries of God" having the "light of" the gospel uses Mary (showing a singular Woman) as a similitude. He expounds a spiritual truth in relation to "a woman" (representative of the many) made under "the law", and the "adoption of sons"

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a WOMAN, made under the law, To redeem THEM that were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption of SONS.

I just thought that was interesting.

Peace

Fireinfolding

FIF, again simply viewing Mary ONLY as a type, and not as a person of relevance to the Church today, is overspiritualizing her . . . doing so will only lead to imbalance in perspective .. .


.

 

[Benedicta00]

Has anyone mentioned that in Jewish tradition when someone was a only child, their cousins was considered their siblings?