Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Mary remain a virgin? | Matt 12:47 | james210 | 132773 | ||
Although Mary was a virgin at Jesus's conception and birth (Luke 1:26-38), she could have and did have children after Jesus: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?" Matt 13:55 (NIV) "Someone told him, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." Matthew 12:47 (NIV) This was not a sin, because she was married when she had sexual relations with her own husband. This also does not mean that she wasn't a virgin when Jesus was conceived. She just had more children after Jesus. |
||||||
2 | Did Mary remain a virgin? | Matt 12:47 | Krisjen | 132779 | ||
Interesting. In my research I looked up the Greek word used and the definition states: 1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ a)his brothers by blood b) all men c)apostles d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place Seems to leave open the possiblity that they were not in fact his blood brothers through Mary. I don't mean to imply that if Mary did have sex with her husband that she was impure, but merely that she was still a virgin. I ask because I was also curious if we know whether Jesus was of Mary's biology, DNA if you will. I can see that the Holy Spirit would insert a completely divine Jesus inside Mary to be born of man, but not necessarily genetically created with a woman. |
||||||
3 | Did Mary remain a virgin? | Matt 12:47 | JCrichton | 132835 | ||
Hi, Krisjen! The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgen... Scripture is viewed in light of the reasoning on your post... I find it interesting that some adamantly interprete the Bible according to only one particular view, the one that supports their particular belief system, even when facts, as you have stated, prove that, if anything, there could be more than one interpretation to "brothers/sisters..." My personal take is this: When Jesus was twelve, disappeared from Mary's and Joseph's side, where were those brothers and sisters? There's not a single mention of the parents frantically rushing with their other children to and fro searching for Jesus... neither is there any mention that they required the assistance of their relatives or close friends to care for the younger children as they set off to search for Jesus (remember, during His time there was no rapid transit system, poor people walked all the way, no telephones, telegraphs... and it all happened during a massive movement where hundreds if not thousands would be traveling throughout that region); neither was there a mention of a younger brother or sister tagging along with Jesus! I am not a linguist, have you read a Bible version that has correctly translated (or is it transliterated) the equivalent of "cousin," "uncle" or "aunt?" As far as I know, the extended family is always referred to as brother/sister, son/daughter of, father/mother of... It could we be argued, from a Biblical perspective, that most people did not even have grandparents--I can't recall the mention of any! One more point... no matter how poor Jesus' brothers and sisters were, if they were blood relatives of Mary, didn't the responsiblity of caring for Mary at Jesus' death fall upon the surviving offspring? Did Jesus not circumvent the Law by denying His brothers and sisters their right and obligation to care for Mary? True, Joseph was human, as Mary, but how many Christians engaged to be married would take on their spoused wife with a foreign pregnancy? Yet, Joseph was a humble servant of the Lord, and did not question the angel's revelation... would it be beyond this man to live with Mary, as her husband, without desiring a sexual relationship? What about Paul, was he misleading people? Did he state that he wished that all would serve the Lord as he did only out of pretense? If not, what would make Paul a stronger (or is it weaker) human being than Joseph, since he spoke of living a celibate life? I know I said "one more point," but I just remembered one more argument: Did Joseph, a man who was close to God, humbly obeying His Command, one day decided not to be loyal to Him? I mean, did you ever hear of Joseph following Christ in his missions, at His detention, at His death? Clearly, by this particular time in Christ's life Joseph, his earthly "father" was no longer living! So would it not be within the realm of possibilities that Jesus did have brothers and sisters, as far as the people of Nazareth and its vicinity were concerned, because Joseph could have been widowed when spoused to Mary, and that he had children from a previous marriage? ...after all, no other person but Jesus Himself is referred to in Scripture as Mary's offspring! God Bless! Angel |
||||||
4 | Did Mary remain a virgin? | Matt 12:47 | james210 | 132868 | ||
JCrichton said "I find it interesting that some adamantly interprete the Bible according to only one particular view," I was just taking what I read in the Bible at face value. At the same time, it's interesting that you base your conclusion in part on the Catholic Church's teaching. Could there be other interpretations to 'brother/sister'? Sure, but I'll stick with 'brother' meaning a true brother. It holds to Scripture that Mary could have had other children, and this in no way takes away from the virgin birth or the divinity of Jesus Christ. Thanks for your comments, James |
||||||
5 | Did Mary remain a virgin? | Matt 12:47 | JCrichton | 132975 | ||
Hi, James! Have you noticed how many times James and Joseph and Simon are used in Scriture? There is this James (the brother of John) who is the son of Zebedee... yet in some Biblical passage it speaks of James the son of Zebedee and John his brother (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:17)... would that mean that John is not the son of Zebedee, but that he is only a half brother of this particular James... or more approprietly, could it not be that James is the eldest son of Zebedee? Rather than grabbing on to something and running with it, when there are various factors that remain unknown or when the preponderance of the factors that are available yield no conclusive evidence, I rather err on the side of caution. "I was just taking what I read in the Bible at face value." On face value, who is responsible for the care of the Jewish elderly parents, a surviving son/daughter or an associate? If it is the surviving children, why did Jesus offer His only earthly possession, to John, a non-blood relation? Would Jesus be demonstrating His disapointment at his sibblings disbelief so on His death He relieved them of their relationship with His Mother? So either Jesus acted in retaliation or there were no next of kin to care for Mary--it is as face value as it can get! Again, on face value, where were Jesus' younger sibblings during his escapade, at age 12, did the good parents of Jesus decided that they were too much of a hasle to take them with them on the family trip or were they careless only with Jesus, since they misplaced only Him? Clearly, not until His adulthood is there any mention of someone related to Him other than Joseph and Mary! There are some that hold the view that Ishmael is the true descendant of Abraham, since he was first born to Abraham--it is impirical face value: Ishmael was born prior to Isaac! In light of this face value truth, would you then say that an error has been committed by Yahweh and Israel, and Jesus and the Apostles...? Clearly, there are additional factors that must be considered--one fact in particular is that it is God's Will to make things happen according to His Divine Plan... Abraham and his wife were looking to have an offspring, they made a decision and committed themselves to what they thought was the only possible means to their goal... God allowed it only to demonstrate His Supremacy: from an infertile womb He can create a nation! Jesus' birth was awaited by a remnant for many hundreds of years... it happened as God saw fit and when He determined it to be... We want to limit Mary and Joseph to our understanding of human-God relationship while boasting of our power to know God and His Plan due to our advanced spirituality! We go to a house of worship and we are pleased with ourselves because we "sacrificed" the things of the world to be with God (for a few hours)... all the time denying Mary and Joseph the ability to be above the world, in a life dedicated to serving the Prince of Peace! "At the same time, it's interesting that you base your conclusion in part on the Catholic Church's teaching." Unless, the Holy Spirit had lost His way and could not Minister Jesus' Church for about fifteen-hundred years, the Church existed as Christ testefied in Matthew 16:18... so, yes, I rather listen to the Church and base my belief on what Scripture and the Church teach, instead of running with someone's "revelation" of Scripture--much of which is "personal revelation" which is not Bible-inclusive but individual-view inclusive! God Bless! Angel |
||||||