"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Matthew 12:46, 13:55JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?
Except that the word 'brother' in Hebrew was also used for 'cousin'. It is inconclusive at best.Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Matthew 12:46, 13:55JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?
Mark 3:31
John 2:12, 7:3, 7:5
1 Corinthians 9:5
Galatians 1:19
Yes, but it seems to flow easier with the notion that they are brothers and sisters. Members of Mary and Josephs immediately family. Why bring up cousins in that context? And since the bible seems to be so big on geneologies wouldn't they make mention of these cousins fathers...or even mothers? Just a thought.Byblos wrote:Except that the word 'brother' in Hebrew was also used for 'cousin'. It is inconclusive at best.Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Matthew 12:46, 13:55JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?
Mark 3:31
John 2:12, 7:3, 7:5
1 Corinthians 9:5
Galatians 1:19
How does it flow easier? If they were members of the same household (very common in those days for an extended family to live together) it would make sense why they are mentioned in that context.FFC wrote:Yes, but it seems to flow easier with the notion that they are brothers and sisters. Members of Mary and Josephs immediately family. Why bring up cousins in that context? And since the bible seems to be so big on geneologies wouldn't they make mention of these cousins fathers...or even mothers? Just a thought.
) but to be honest, I'm just flummoxed!?!? perplexed and downright bemused and, dare I say it, sceptical....yes, I dare... 
Those passages are not written in Hebrew though.Byblos wrote:Except that the word 'brother' in Hebrew was also used for 'cousin'. It is inconclusive at best.Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Matthew 12:46, 13:55JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?
Mark 3:31
John 2:12, 7:3, 7:5
1 Corinthians 9:5
Galatians 1:19
Adelphos, Greek, sorry.Canuckster1127 wrote:Those passages are not written in Hebrew though.
Now we've switched to whole different topic (I was addressing the question as to whether or not Mary had any other children, not particularly her perpetual virginity).zoegirl wrote:I guess what Ive never understood, Byblos, is why the *need* to keep Mary a virgin? What does this possibly do to her identity? In other words, why would her not being a virgin after delivering a baby somehow diminish her worth or worthiness of being "lifted up" and adored? It does seem natural to read the scripture that Christ had brothers and sisters and it seems perfectly natural to think that the labor and delivery would have been as intense as any other delivery.
I mean, I'm not doubting that God could have kept her a virgin after the birth, but....why do you think this is necessary for doctrine?
Forgetting about the brothers and sisters for a second, why should she remain a virgin after delivering Christ?? Bearing children is certainly no less "pure" and would not diminish her favor in God's eye's, so why the need to change such a natural consequence of childbirth? Surely the uniqueness and purity of her virgin state need not continue after Christ's delivery?
I just have never understood this. While obviously virginity and purity represent something and are valuable, surely being a mother is no less in meaning and value and adoration. And the loss of that virginity in that specialness of bringing forth a baby should not be viewed as so awful to require her to remain a virgin.
Not trying to be provoking (those darn steroids...yeah....that's it, blame it on the steroids
To me, the glory of the incarnation rest partly in the sheer mess of the labor and delivery and the "humbleness" of Christ and being part of the human experience. I would think that MAry would have been part and parcel of this very real human experience. If, for example, God did not want Christ and Mary to be part of this very real elemental part of the human process, then why even choose this method of entrance into this world?
Anyway, my two cents and questions....I'm not interested in a huge debate, just some thoughts, never understood the need....that's all
Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection. This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were "very good." Out of pristine matter the Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being, forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate elements from which the first Adam received his substance foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam (Romans 5:14) took his human substance.
The second foreshadowing of Mary is Eve, the physical mother of our race, just as Mary is our spiritual mother through our membership in the Body of Christ (Rev. 12:17). What Eve spoiled through disobedience and lack of faith (Genesis 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Luke 1:38).
We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel." This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the "seed of the woman," a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.
If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary's Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.
And finally,The third and most compelling type of Mary's Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the construction of the ark, the special container which would carry the Commandments. The surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40, Moses repeats word for word each of the details of the ark's construction.
Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord's exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
When the ark was completed, "the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling" (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.
There's another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).
Compare this with Elizabeth's nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John's leap was for precisely the same reason as David's--not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.
Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth's home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it "blessed his household." This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New Testament's discussion of Mary's role.
I only offer this as a response to a question and not as a point of debate. I'm sure many of you will look at this and conclude differently but to say that the Marian doctrine of perpetual virginity is unbiblical is inaccurate at best.Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.
byblos wrote:Mary needed Christ to save her just as we all do. It is not BECAUSE of her perpetual virginity that the incarnation was possible
Well, I don't know how these two statements can possibly be reconclied, either she was sinless and righteous in which case she did not need reconciliation through Christ or she needed to be saved just like the rest of us in which case she was not completely sinless.byblos wrote:If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable.
My opinion of the entire Immaculate Conception doctrine is that it is something that is reasoned backwards and not drawn from any foundational text.zoegirl wrote:byblos wrote:Mary needed Christ to save her just as we all do. It is not BECAUSE of her perpetual virginity that the incarnation was possibleWell, I don't know how these two statements can possibly be reconclied, either she was sinless and righteous in which case she did not need reconciliation through Christ or she needed to be saved just like the rest of us in which case she was not completely sinless.byblos wrote:If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable.
However, I guess the *other* confusion I have is why her "immaculate" state is synonymous with virginity. But I suppose this ventures into what the pre-fall state means. Do we really suppose that the immaculate creation excluded the natural events of childbirth? Was this part of the curse? Dunno, but I would not rest an entire doctrine on it.
But thanks!
The doctrine states that Mary wasn't born sinless out of her own effort and she certainly needed to be saved by Christ. The saving, however, occurred before her birth (anticipatorily). If you read the link they give a fitting analogy for this: when we fall in the pit we scream for Christ and he saves us. Mary screamed for him before she fell. That's the only difference. I see no contradiction with that and the fact that we all need saving.zoegirl wrote:byblos wrote:Mary needed Christ to save her just as we all do. It is not BECAUSE of her perpetual virginity that the incarnation was possibleWell, I don't know how these two statements can possibly be reconclied, either she was sinless and righteous in which case she did not need reconciliation through Christ or she needed to be saved just like the rest of us in which case she was not completely sinless.byblos wrote:If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable.
Her immaculate state is not synonymous with her virginity per se but specifically with her perpetual virginity as the new and truly pure ark of the new covenant.zoegirl wrote:However, I guess the *other* confusion I have is why her "immaculate" state is synonymous with virginity. But I suppose this ventures into what the pre-fall state means. Do we really suppose that the immaculate creation excluded the natural events of childbirth? Was this part of the curse? Dunno, but I would not rest an entire doctrine on it.
thanks for putting up with the questions, this doctrine has simply befuddled me!
) I don't see it as a need to beat the issue...nicely explainedThen I've accomplished more than I'd hoped for. And I know you don't agree with it and of course that's quite alright. In the grand scheme of things the doctrine is relatively unimportant. You have nothing to be sorry about (I didn't mean to imply that you should have read the link, I was just referencing the analogy back to it).zoegirl wrote:ok, I can see it more clearly, although respectfully I don't agree with the doctrine (but you knew that
Sorry I didn't read more thoroughly