Replies

"You're quite simply ignorant of Scripture, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic."

I guess those years studying the Talmud were lost. I'm near fluent in Hebrew and doing OK in Greek and Aramaic. (I am a Jew who lived in Israel, after all, even if I did convert to Christianity.)

"Your feeble attempt at applying contemporary definitions and word usage to a culture two millennia removed from the present is laughable."

The words have not changed. All that has changed is broad access by knowlegeable men to the original scriptural language.

"Provide me the passages from Scripture where the Blessed Mother gives birth to other children?"

Obviously, the birth scene is not there, but the brothers and sisters are. These have been cited.

And regarding Calvin (just another flawed bigoted man to me), but since you quote him as authoritative, he actually said:

"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God."

So much for this being "new" theory, huh?

I guess those years studying the Talmud were lost.

Obviously. Were you a disciple of the Jews who accepted or rejected Jesus?

but the brothers and sisters are.

Those "brothers and sisters" are not sons and daughters of the Blessed Mother.

So much for this being "new" theory, huh?

So much for you disproving your ignorance, again.

"There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!

"For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....

"And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...."
John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, Geneva 1562

"We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ."
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 13:55, Geneva, 1562

"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person."
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 1:25, Geneva, 1562