Featured My Journey Into The Catholic Church

A marriage is a very sacred union. Marriages are arranged in eastern nations, just as Abraham arranged for Isaac to have a bride. Abraham went out of the way to see that Isaac's wife was a virgin, a woman that had certain qualities, the most important of was not of the Canaanites. His servant was a Godly man who he could trust. When the Holy Spirit led him to the right family and the right woman, he testified, "I being in the way, the Lord led me."

It would be absolutely inconceivable for the parents of Mary to choose a husband for Mary that had already been married before. They would have had too much love and care for her to let that happen. It would be a blight and an embarrassment on the family. How could they even consider it? To invent the notion that Mary married someone previously married is so ridiculous and out of line with Jewish custom it is absurd. And this is made all the more magnified seeing it is for the one who will be the mother of Jesus!
All of this just to preserve an heretical doctrine of "the perpetual virginity of Mary." How absurdly ridiculous, and what extreme measures will the RCC go to, to perpetuate this myth!

 

That is what I am saying because that is what the scripture is saying.

Walter, you are a good and sincere person. But to accept Roman Catholicism, you are going to have to accept man-made tradition above scripture. You might be able to do that, but I could not.

So, I'll post again, just to be absolutely clear about the scriptures: "Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born.

According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings)..."

 

I am not really talking about what is lawful here. In some cases a woman could be treated more like a piece of property, if you wanted stick strictly according to the law. The book of Ruth is beautiful love story in one sense, but Ruth still had to be "redeemed" or purchased. It was a business transaction made in the "gate" of the city where all business transactions are made--in the public.
Hosea bought back his wife with money. He paid for her. She was put on the slave block.
Hosea 3:2 So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley:

But is the one that will bare the Son of God be as a slave to another man, piece of property to sell at a man's whim? I think not!

It is ironic to me that the Catholic who puts Mary on a pedestal, honors her to the degree of worship, prays to her, calls her the queen of heaven, gives her the most exalted of all possible positions, "blessed above all women," would think that she would not have the "perfect" marriage/wedding, by "virgin marrying virgin." That is the preferred marriage for any parent.

When it comes time for my daughter it would grieve me greatly if she insisted on marrying an older man with children. Why would she want to marry another person's family? That doesn't make sense--not for someone who is probably 17-20, as Mary probably was.
In the OT a man was not to go to war if newly married but remain with his wife. How would that apply here? In The OT, we have many examples of believers displaying love between each other. But if Joseph is that much over you have a father/daughter relation, or a master/servant relation. Neither one is suitable. Mary would probably just be Joseph's servant taking care of all his children and tending for them.

The more I think of this entire situation the more problematic it becomes. Read through Luke two--the "Christmas story." If Joseph had any other children they would have been mentioned. All throughout their betrothal, their stay at the inn, their travel with the infant Jesus, their visit with the Shepherds, and then the wise men, there is never any mention of any other children. Only three people are ever mentioned: Joseph, Mary and Jesus.
From the Scriptures, where do these children from Joseph suddenly come from. Jesus was "the carpenter's son," as identified in Mat.13:55. And those were his brothers, not step brothers.

Normally a widow/widower would marry someone their own age.
It just doesn't fit.
It is only fitting for the Catholics because they start with a false premise and then they say: "Ok, how am I going to prove this premise true." But a false premise always remains false.
The question ought to be: What does the Bible say about Mary?

 

This person hasn't studied the Scripture at all. He is perpetuating RCC myth. He does not exegete Scripture but reads into it what he wants to. He uses common Catholic terminology rejected by all Protestants/Baptists like "mother of God." The entire article is very biased and unscriptural. There is no biblical evidence in this article at all. Every bit of it can be refuted.

 

The normal and literal meaning of the word is a physical brother of the same womb. Jesus had blood siblings who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word. His brothers are named in Matthew 13:55 (James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas), and the next verse says He had sisters.

Consider also: Matthew 27:56 "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." And this: Mark 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."

Why not accept what the Bible says in context and in its clear and natural meaning? Why strain to make it fit with a vain invention of the Catholic Church?

Many RCC doctrines cannot be supported by scripture; in fact, the scripture refutes them, so it must use the hierarchy to enforce these doctrines. Thus, the RCC has usurped the authority of the scriptures.

 

Nice try, but not even close: ἀδελφοί can in the 'normal meaning' of the words mean 'brothers' in either the physical or spiritual sense. For instance, when Peter addresses the crowd at Pentecost in Acts 2:37, surely you are not saying that the entire crowd there were born of the same mother as him? Or when Paul uses ἀδελφοί in Rom 1:13, that he means that he's been wanting to attend a family reunion?

ἀδελφοί has multiple meanings in the NT...

 

Are we not nitpicking nuances? There is is preponderance of evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus was not a perpetual virgin.

A preponderance of nuances will not support scriptural doctrine.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

So do many words. That is really not the discussion. What is the primary meaning of the this word? It is "brother." The others are secondary.
Take a look at my explanation here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1959935&postcount=276

There is enough Scripture to prove beyond any doubt that the passages being spoken of are the actual brethren, the family of Jesus. The word cannot be translated cousins or in any other wider sense in each and every case. Mat.13:54-57 speaks directly about Jesus family. The crowd wants to know about him, his brothers, sisters, mother, father. "Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph). Where did he get all this wisdom from. He had just returned to the place where he had grown up as a boy (the carpenter's son--that is how they knew him), and now he speaks as one with the wisdom of the Son of God, and is able to perform miracles as well. This is not the one who they knew before his ministry started. They are amazed, astonished at what they see. They point to his brothers, his sisters. "Are they not with us to this day"? Jesus had been traveling throughout Israel healing, doing miracles, and preaching the kingdom of God.
What does Jesus conclude with: "A man is without honor in his own country (home)" For all that he did, they still did not believe on him.

There is no possible way one can get cousins out of this passage.
The Greek also has another word meaning "cousins". The Holy Spirit would have used it if it wanted the passage to communicate that meaning. But it used a much more direct word which is more associated with "brothers."

 

Surely you are not saying that in the verses I quoted that these are simply spiritual brothers and sisters. Context is everything. And the extent to which some go to deny the obvious in order to support some non-scriptural fantasy is simply absurd.

Due to the absence of a goddess in the newly amalgamated "Christian"-Roman/pagan state religion, they created one. And it would not have been acceptable for the goddess to have engaged in something so base and human as sexual relations and procreation with her husband.

 

There is no 'goddess'; honouring Mary predates Christianity being a state religion in the 4th century by many decades so your theory doesn't hold water...

 

Just as the Bible wasn't dropped down out of heaven intact, so also the making Mary a goddess was a gradual development, and this coincided with the wrong views of sexuality already creeping into the church, also. The further away in time from the writing of the scriptures, the more superstition and pagan idolatry that got mixed in.

If people truly wanted to honor Mary, they would acknowledge the scriptural teaching about her, and that is that she procreated children after Jesus with her husband, Joseph.