1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mary always a virgin?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by rstrats, Nov 17, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,914
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you claiming Jesus didn't exist before Mary?

    Galatians
    4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

    Remember EK preposition is used for the situation when someone/something was inside a place and then come out of it.
    So, Jesus was inside a woman and came out of her. That's what Gal 4:4 is talking about.

    Is it the proof that Mary produced Jesus?
    If the ovum of Mary was used for Jesus, then Jesus can be called Son of Mary.
    That's what Muhammad said it too!
    Quran 4:171
    .... The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only an apostle of Allah, and His Word that He cast toward Mary and a spirit from Him. ...
    Quran 5:75
    .. The Messiah, son of Mary, is but an apostle. Certainly [other] apostles have passed
    before him, and his mother was a truthful one. Both of them would eat food. Look how We clarify the signs for them, and yet, look, how they go astray!

    For Satan, it is important for them to exalt Mary as the mother of Jesus and to call Jesus the son of Mary instead of Son of God
    If the ovum of Mary was used for conceiving Jesus, then Jesus must be called Son of Mary.
    But Jesus said this: John 8:56-58
    Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
    Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    The Brain of Jesus at the time when He existed at the time of Abraham was formed by the conception of Mary's ovum? Mary didn't exist at that time!
    Then where is the brain of Jesus which remembered Abraham gone?
    That was still in Jesus when Jesus was confronted with Jews in John 8:56-58
    If the ovum of Mary was used and fertilized with the Holy Spirit, then both must have formed a new brain in addition to the brain which existed at the time of Abraham and remember such memory when Jesus debated with the Jews in John 8.
    If you know Greek, you would never claim Gal 4:4 as the proof that Mary produced Jesus.
    Jesus existed before Mary, before David, before Moses ( Heb 11:26), before Abraham, before the Creation of the world and Universe. Jesus had the body and the brain before Adam was created. Adam was created in the likeness of Jesus.
    Mary was just a surrogate mother of Jesus. If she was the biological mother, Jesus should be called Son of Mary, which is untrue.
    Jesus has a Father but no mother.
    For the beginners, Jesus had a mother, Mary, but no father because Joseph was not the biological father.

    Eliyahu
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,914
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matthew 27:

    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.

    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?

    Here you can notice:

    1) Mary is the mother of Jesus
    2) James and Joses were the brothers of Jesus
    3) Mary is the mother of James and Joses

    Therefore Mary couldn't be the perpetual virgin AT ALL

    Mary had 5 sons and 2 daughters or more

    Sons: Jesus, Jacob, Joses, Simon, Judas
    Daughters : Plural

    Therefore RCC claim that Mary was perpetually Virgin is WRONG
    Please note that Mary Magdalene is mentioned ahead of Mary the mother of James and Joses.
    The mother of Jesus cannot be a perpetual, or a permanent Virgin as she had the other children.

    Eliyahu
     
  3. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    9,113
    Likes Received:
    737
    Faith:
    Baptist
  4. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So, it isn't possible that Joseph was a widower and had children from a previous marriage?

    “Brethren of the Lord”
     
  5. rstrats

    rstrats Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many things are possible but what is there in scripture which brings the idea up in the first place?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    8,710
    Likes Received:
    968
    There is no biblical support for Joseph to have children from a previous marriage and, furthermore, it isn’t necessary.

    The idea Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, her husband, is just not supported by scripture and, quite frankly, scripture says the opposite. He kept her a virgin “until” she gave birth to Jesus. She had at least 6 children with Joseph.

    peace to you
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Entirely impossible? Maybe not. But supportable from Scripture? Not really. For example, there is no indication they were around when it was time to flee to Egypt.

    But that’s not the real issue. That article relies on extrabiblical ideas and sources. The notion that Mary had taken a vow of chastity even before marriage sounds highly implausible. No contemporary support is provided for such a practice, only conjecture.

    It is intriguing that the story evidently changed under Jerome’s late influence. Note that he was not defending a biblical doctrine, but one handed down from later disciples, which he felt free to change or embellish. By all accounts, it is an extrabiblical account, and quite unnecessary.

    According to the Orthodox, Catholics have taken it way too far, resulting in Mariolatry. Perhaps Catholics feel the Orthodox have erred in this matter as well.

    A straightforward reading of Scripture only requires Mary to have been a virgin up to the birth of Jesus. She is uniquely blessed of women, but was easily a faithful wife and mother in every sense. This does not demean her in the least. There is no need for her perpetual virginity, and a lot wrong with doctrines that have arisen from the idea.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,914
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In such case, if James and Joses were the children from the previous marriage of Joseph, then they should have had another mother. But Matthew 27 says this:

    Mat 27:56
    Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

    Here, specifically, Mary is the mother of James and Joses.
    If James and Joses had another woman as their mother and Maria were the step-mother, then this verse wouldn't have said so.

    This verse hit the nail on the coffin.

    Now you can check about the manuscripts of this verse, but the absolute majority including A( Alexandrianus), B ( Vatican Text), C( Ephraemi) state the same as KJV.
    Moreover, there is no indication or no implication that there were step brothers of Jesus.

    John 7:3 and 5 says < even the brothers of Jesus didn't believe in Him>
    If they were step brothers or cousins, the verse 5 wouldn't have said so.
    Therefore RCC's desperate attempt to make Maria the Perpetual Virgin wouldn't succeed.

    Eliyahu

    So, there is no way to escape
     
  9. Cathode

    Cathode Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2021
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Luther wrote.

    Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John)
     
  10. rstrats

    rstrats Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  11. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    706
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They called uncles brothers too.
     
  12. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O. Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    706
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Name of book or source? Volume? Page numbers? Or did you just copy and paste from some other message board?

    Yes, Luther believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Who cares that he believed that Mary never had sex with her husband. He's wrong. And he, like all the rest who exalt Mary to a place that she, as a mere human, does NOT deserve has NO proof.

    Besides, how does he deal with the fact that the Bible CLEARLY states that they abstained from sex UNTIL Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25

    SO WHAT if "brother" means "cousin". [Which is does not]. Mary and Joseph, according to the holy Word of God, abstained UNTIL after Jesus was born and then normal relations began.

    Why? Why? Why? Why is is so all-fired important that she be a perpetual virgin? Have you marked out Matthew 1:25 from your Bible?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Cathode

    Cathode Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2021
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Calvin answers this point. “ Until “ doesn’t denote what happens after.

    “This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. — Calv Comm Matt 1.25

    That’s why Calvin also believed Mary ever virgin.

    “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned.”
    (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries

    “Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.” (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    Yes, the bible says that she did not have sex UNTIL jesus was born. Let's look closer at that, Scarlett. This is some information I found about:
    Propositions about a preposition

    Scripture stating Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they “knew” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means! A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the “until” is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples that may help clarify things:

    • II Samuel 6:23: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to [unti] the day of her death.” Does this mean she had children after she died?
    • I Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after St. Paul comes?
    • I Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “[H]e will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
    In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until,” whereas the texts I mention above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. Heos hou, it is argued, would indicate the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have then ended after Jesus was born.

    The problems with this theory begin with the fact that there is no scholarship available that confirms it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter:

    But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Greek, heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.

    Does this text mean that St. Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

    A positive outlook

    Having dispatched some of the objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity, perhaps some positive reasons for faith would be in order. In my book Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight positive reasons, but for brevity’s sake, we will briefly consider three:

    1. In Luke 1:34, when the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

    When we consider Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph to then have had what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married! That would mean St. Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point. Normally, after the espousal the husband would prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why St. Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) when he discovered she was pregnant.

    This background is significant, because a newly married woman would not ask the question, “How shall this be?” She would know! Unless, of course, that woman had a vow of virginity! Mary believed the message but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with St. Joseph.

    2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his mother to the care of St. John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable to believe that Jesus would take his mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

    Some will claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his mother to St. John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross.

    This claim reveals a low and unbiblical Christology. As St. John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (John 2:25). If St. James were his blood brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is, Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his mother.

    3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. When Mary asked the angel how she was going to conceive a child in Luke 1:34, the angel responded:

    The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

    This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary then came up pregnant, St. Joseph would have been required to divorce her, because she would then belong to another (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3:1). When St. Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of St. Joseph having conjugal relations with Mary would not have been a consideration for a “just man” like St. Joseph.

    One final thought

    An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his wife,” according to Matthew 1:24, if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

    The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but St. Joseph was her spouse and protector on Earth. Tthis is not a contradiction. All Christians have a nuptial relationship with our Lord. The Church is, after all, “the bride of Christ.” But in the case of Mary and Joseph, Joseph was essential in the life of Mary, his spouse, for at least two obvious reasons. First, as St. Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, St. Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see II Samuel 7:14; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of St. Joseph. As the only son of St. Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

    Also, in a culture that did not take kindly to espoused women becoming pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. Thus, St. Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.
     
  15. atpollard

    atpollard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Technically, it springs from "Sola Scriptura" vs "Scripture and Tradition".
    If one rejects "tradition" as unreliable, then
    • [Matthew 12:47 NKJV] 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
    • [Mark 3:32 NKJV] 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You."
    • [Luke 8:20 NKJV] 20 And it was told Him [by some], who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You."
    appear to have a clear and unambiguous meaning that translators chose not to render as "mother and cousins" or "mother and distant relatives" when they had the opportunity to do so from the earliest vernacular translation up to the most recent. Lutherans, like Catholics, place trust in "Church Tradition" while other 'Protestants' like Baptists place no trust in tradition over the word of God.

    It is the reason why you are not a Baptist and we are not Lutherans. Each must obey his conscience to the glory of God. :)
     
  16. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O. Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    706
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The title of this article is "Proposition about a Preposition" I'm so sorry, but whoever wrote this article that you have cited - [I do wish people would cite their sources] - is not an expert of prepositions, conjuctions, or the word "until". The examples are sad and don't apply.

    I taught English for a long time. Here's how prepositions work and in particular, the word "until".

    PART I: Until CAN BE a preposition that separates a complete phrase with an incomplete phrase that usually acts like a noun.or is a noun. [The very definition of a prepositional phrase.]
    • Grandma stayed with us until Easter.
    • He lived in Mexico until the beginning of 2020.
    • They played scrabble until 2:00 AM.
    • Up until today, I thought only male cows had horns.
    Every single time, this pattern shows an action that changed to the opposite after the word until.

    PART II: Until can ALSO be a conjunction that connects clauses - independent, dependent, .....
    • She wouldn't allow her sister to ride in the car with her until she agreed to wear a seatbelt.
    • Jeffrey love to eat fried fish until his doctor told him to get off of fried foods.
    Again, these show that something changed to the opposite of what previously happened.

    PART III: The examples in the text you cited to not fit the bill. Sorry.
    • "..until we meet again, God bless you..." This is neither an example of until used as a preposition or a conjuction. "until we meet again" is a euphemism for "good-bye" "see you later" or "so long". It is absolutely separate from "God bless you". The two statements have nothing to do with each other and need no connection. It could have easily been said, "Bye-bye!!! God bless you!!"
    • “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” This is EXACTLY like the above exampe. This is TWO separate ideas that need no connection. "Until I come" mean "good-bye for". Paul is saying, "I'm gone for now, DON"T stop doing what I've taught you to do." No preposition. No conjuction.
    • "For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” The author of your article need to read scripture in context - not just picking out sentences that have the word "until". Paul is teaching in this passage the context of Jesus' 1,000 year reign after which the devil will have one more attempt at rebellion and then Jesus will finally destroy even that.
    PART IV: Matthew 1:25 = "But he [Joseph] had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a Son.
    • This is the classic conjuction form of the word, "until". It shows a connection of two things and the change of the first to the opposite after the subordinating conjunction "until".

     
  17. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    8,710
    Likes Received:
    968
    They also called “brothers”and “sisters” what they were, brothers and sisters.

    Did Holy writ and Jews call biological brothers and sisters (don’t forget those sisters) anything other than brothers and sisters?

    Context determines meaning. There is nothing in the context of those passages to suggest “brothers” and “sisters” meant cousins.

    Peace to you
     
    #77 canadyjd, Dec 6, 2021
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,914
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mat 27:56
    Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

    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?

    The Mother of James ( Jakobo) and Joses was Mary

    The sons of May was James and Joses, and .....

    This rejects the idea that Mary had no son except Jesus.

    If those brothers are the cousins having the mother named < Mary >
    then you are claiming that Mary's parent had 2 daughters named Mary together and that Mary had a sister named Mary. Have you ever found any family having 2 daughters and their names are the same?

    If you are determined to be fooled by the false doctrines or dogmas, or any brain-wash, there will be no remedy until the judgment day.

    Eliyahu
     
  19. VDMA

    VDMA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2021
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I haven’t seen any convincing arguments.

    As for me, I'm just going to side with what the universal church has always taught: Mary remained a virgin, Paul remained in the faith, and Jesus remained single. I'll leave the new and sexy innovations to the theological liberals and radical Protestants.
     
    #79 VDMA, Dec 9, 2021
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2021
  20. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O. Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    706
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You don't want to be convinced.

    And I don't understand about Paul and Jesus. Of COURSE Paul remained in the faith. Of COURSE Jesus remained single.

    But Mary? I don't understand what is a "new and sexy INNOVATION" about a married couple having normal relations and that being "liberal and radical" theology.

    The Bible clearly says that they didn't not have normal relations UNTIL after he was born. Someone who doesn't understand prepositions and conjuctions tried to make that a false statement. But it just is NOT rocket science.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...