Replies

" House Rejects Measure To Continue US Role in Libya"

Actually, history tells us that when young Jewish girls took vows of chastity it was FOR LIFE. Much as it is today with nuns. What Mary was saying was that "How can this be --- because I know not man, (nor will I ever). You see, my friend, if Mary had intentions of breaking her vows one day and "knowing" a man, she would have had no need whatsoever to ask that question in the first place: "But how shall that be"? She'd have known perfectly well "how that would be".

And no, the Scripture do not tell us that Mary had other children. Some verses refer to "Jesus' brothers and sisters', meaning his followers, disciples and brothers and sisters in the spirit who followed his every word. The ENTIRE Bible is rife with the term "brothers", clearly referrng many times to like-minded followers, or close friends. But notice that the New Testament NEVER calls anyone "Mary's sons or daughters", NEVER. That's why the Protestant argument agaisnt the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity crumbles like a moth's wing when you touch it.

Furthermore, in those days the Jews spoke Aramaic, and there was no term for "cousin", so a cousin would indeed be often referred to as "brother". In fact, even UNCLES were often referred to as "brother". Thems just the facts, my ignorant friend. I hope I've enlightened you a little.

Now, if you want to brawl against the Catholic Church, go do it someplace else. Please.

Far be it from me to interrupt your little spat, but a point or two for clarity here. There are NO historical proofs that women took vows as temple virgins in the Jewish history of the Old Testament. It was usually the pagan temples that had them but they were temple prostitutes used in the worship of the goddesses. Mary was NOT a temple virgin and had no such vows of chastity or else she would not have been pledged in marriage to Joseph. Now certainly no sexual acts before or outside of marriage was a commandment for all Jews, male or female. The "I know not a man" statement would mean she was in her betrothal period (which lasted one year) and no sexual contact was permitted during this time. That is exactly why Joseph "sought to put her away quietly" rather than have her face execution for being with child before they came together. The angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him to go ahead and take Mary for his wife and that she was not guilty of adultery but was carrying the Messiah conceived of the Holy Spirit.

As far as Mary having other children - the subject of this thread - for those not Catholic, it is no problem if she had since the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus is what counted. Her perfectly lawful and blessed marriage to Joseph could carry on as any normal family was commanded by God. I think Scripture AND history says that Jesus had blood bothers and sister and they were not only referred to as such during his time on earth, but after he ascended back into Heaven they continued that connection to him. James even went on to become the head of the church in Jerusalem as well as the author of the Biblical book by his name.

Finally, this talk of Aramaic not having a word for brother and it meant cousin or kinsman is not entirely true. There is an Aramaic translation lexicon on the Internet the link is here. I looked up the words brother, sister and cousin and they were there and were different words. Brother was 'OxOd'; cousin was 'hdd'; sister was 'Fxd'. Their roots were also different. Brother and sister both had a root of "OxO" and cousin's root was "Odd". In the Greek, the words are also different for cousin vs. brother. You also have to explain why Paul referred to Jesus' brothers numerous times. Saying they were just cousins or brothers "in spirit" is denying the context of their usage in Scripture.

As I said before, it's no biggie to me if some people want to venerate Mary as a "perpetual virgin", I think she is pretty special even without that. My problem is when it is made out to be a cardinal doctrine with total acceptance demanded under penalty of excommunication. There were many early church "fathers" who did not hold to it as well as Mary's Immaculate Conception, meaning she was born without sin. I think there is always a reason why some things ARE in the Bible and why some things are NOT.

Thems just the facts, my ignorant friend. I hope I've enlightened you a little.

Enlightened me??? With what??? More fables...

Actually, history tells us that when young Jewish girls took vows of chastity it was FOR LIFE.

I don't believe you...Post some credible Jewish documents...

You see, my friend, if Mary had intentions of breaking her vows one day and "knowing" a man, she would have had no need whatsoever to ask that question in the first place: "But how shall that be"? She'd have known perfectly well "how that would be".

That whole line of thought is ridiculous...Mary planned on being a virgin until she was married...That's why she ask 'how shall that be'...

That's what I've been saying in numerous posts...You got it, but you still don't get it...

Brother/brethren indicates someone with a common bond; whether it be a brother by blood, a brother in Christ, a brother in arms, a brother in race, etc...

But notice that the New Testament NEVER calls anyone "Mary's sons or daughters", NEVER. That's why the Protestant argument agaisnt the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity crumbles like a moth's wing when you touch it.

But you notice that no one ever calls Mary's dog LuLu...So what??? Does that mean she didn't have a dog??? You guys sure come up with some feeble reasoning...