Mary always a virgin?

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

 

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

 

Of course. He was always the Son of God ( John 1:1-3, John 1:18) before He became the man. John 1:14. Philippians 2:6-8.

 

So, it isn't possible that Joseph was a widower and had children from a previous marriage?

“Brethren of the Lord”

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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)

 

They called uncles brothers too.

 

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] )

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.