Jesus Christ was Born of Woman . . . fact or fiction?

[robycop3]

Scripture directly refutes this.

Acts 2:38 —> "Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'"

Acts 22:16 —> “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”


Here is St. Peter stating baptism is salvific and, contrary to what you posted above, does not remove dead skin or dirt from the flesh:

1 Peter 3:20 —> “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”





Your rejection of baptism aside, this latest statement is more troubling. For if Jesus did not have our exact human nature (which you label as "sin nature"), then whatever nature He had is what He redeemed. That means you and I and all other sons of Adam who have a "sin nature" are still not redeemed.

"And since these children have a common inheritance of flesh and blood, he too shared that inheritance with them." (Heb 2:14)

Don't be silly- I'm a BAPTIST.

However, baptism is SYMBOLIC. If baptism washes away sin, why call on Jesus?

Jesus saved the repentant thief on the cross who couldn't possibly be baptized. But I believe every new Christian SHOULD be baptized ASAP. However, it isn't always possible to baptize people at the time of salvation or even months later in places like Barrow, AK if their church doesn't have a natatorium.

However, if a new Christian dies before being baptized, he/she's still saved.

Baptizing an unsaved person produces only a wet sinner, same as baptizing a baby produces only a wet baby.

 

[Walpole]

With all that sex going on it should be easy to produce a scriptural verse of the uterine siblings of Jesus as Wapole asked?

JoeT

Quite paradoxical that Mary's supposed subsequent maternities is seemingly dogma to modern Protestants, without one single verse of Scripture to support it.

 

[Particular]

With all that sex going on it should be easy to produce a scriptural verse of the uterine siblings of Jesus as Wapole asked?

JoeT

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Now, you may commence with the mental gymnastics needed for you to deny Mary having children and being sexually active with Joseph. I expect you will go directly to your big book of Roman Catholic dogma that contorts and twists, without biblical evidence, in order to make Mary a perpetual virgin who never glorified God by having sex with her husband Joseph.


Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

 

[Particular]

It is not normal to give a human nature to the Logos. Neither the neighborhood kids, the Scribes and Pharisees, Pontius Pilate nor anyone else other than Mary gave God a human nature. Thus her and her conjugal life was unique and anything but normal to say the least.



If everything in Scripture points to Mary having multiple subsequent maternities and therefore Jesus having uterine siblings, please post one single instance of Scripture stating this.

See my response to JoeT.
You folks are twisting an amazing pretzel rather than accept what God reveals.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Now, you may commence with the mental gymnastics needed for you to deny Mary having children and being sexually active with Joseph. I expect you will go directly to your big book of Roman Catholic dogma that contorts and twists, without biblical evidence, in order to make Mary a perpetual virgin who never glorified God by having sex with her husband Joseph.


Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes. and nothing is said about a human male being involved.

Luke 1
31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

 

[Walpole]

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Now, you may commence with the mental gymnastics needed for you to deny Mary having children and being sexually active with Joseph. I expect you will go directly to your big book of Roman Catholic dogma that contorts and twists, without biblical evidence, in order to make Mary a perpetual virgin who never glorified God by having sex with her husband Joseph.


Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Your error stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family. The use of “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use than we use today.

Using the Gospels, which you reference, we can see this to be the case.

St. Matthew (Mt. 27:56) and St. Mark (Mk 15:40) state the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to be Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth.


---> John 19:25: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

---> This Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas in Matthew 13:55.

---> Matthew abbreviates this list by simply naming the oldest two, James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 as this Mary’s (Cleophas) sons.


Ergo, when James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are called Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew 13:55, this can not mean uterine siblings based on the fact that St. Matthew names a different Mary as their mother.


So while Scripture says Jesus had "brothers" (and sisters), Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers as once again, in Jewish antiquity, "brother" had a much wider meaning than we modern Westerners use.

 

[Calminian]

Exactly!

Yes, exactly. Saved as in brought safely through, not saved as in by way of. If you trusted the historical account, this wouldn't even be a point of disagreement.

...I accept the type is the Ark and the reality is the Church of Christ.

Yet you don't believe Peter and Jesus that the true baptism is not of the water but of the Spirit. That's what's sad. You're ignoring the obvious straightforward text in favor of fallible man's interpretations.

Was the deluge actual water or just symbolic of something, like God's destructive power?

(I believe the it was a historical event with actual water.)

Then why not accept what the actual account reveals, that God saved Noah from the flood waters, not by the flood waters, which is why Peter used that specific word.

But you are arguing against the words of Peter...

Now you're just being stubborn. Peter said the baptism that saves is not the water washing the flesh, but a decision for God. The text is very obvious and straightforward.

The words of Peter refute any concept that water is symbolic. Here again are his words...

When Peter tells you baptism saves, but not the washing part, the decision part, why do you ignore him?

"...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21, NIV, which you quoted)

Yep, and I believe Peter, that this water symbolizes true Baptism, the pledge to God, not the water immersion performed by man. Very easy and straightforward. John the baptist told you,

Matt. 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.​

That's the Baptism Peter wants for you, the Baptism of the Spirit. That's the Baptism the water symbolizes. That's the only Baptism that will save you from the works and legalism you're trusting in. If you refuse, and cling to your works, you'll receive another kind of Baptism by fire which is explain in the next verse. This is not me, talking this is Scripture.

 

[utilyan]

Not normal???
Let's extend your logic.
The neighborhood kids friendship was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
The Scribes and Pharisees interaction was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
Pontius Pilates relationship with Jesus was not normal because he was in the Presence of the Most High.
Any interaction with Jesus is not normal because... Presence of the Most High.

God created sex, in the confines of marriage, as a glorious, God honoring, form of worship. It gives God joy to see humans in obedient behavior, of which sex in a marital relationship is beautiful and God honoring. Your attempt to deny this in Mary and Joseph is contemptible and a slap in God's face.

Everything in scripture points to Joseph and Mary being sexually active as husband and wife, just as any other husband and wife are sexually active. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was the mother of them all.
You have to do some incredible gymnastics with the text to explain away the fact that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life filled with children as a result.

No. Celibacy was a common practice. Even if you were married Paul suggested being celibate.

Through out time she is called the virgin, not the ex-virgin, or once virgin. When she picked up being handmaid of the LORD I guaranteed Joseph would have not that even if he were half as pious. Would you? As if you don't have enough on your plate raising GOD ALMIGHTY.


1 Corinthians 7

29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;


"from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;"

What does that mean? What is Paul saying here?......sounds catholic.



34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.


The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord.

one who is married is concerned about the things of the world,


>>>>> undistracted devotion to the Lord.<<<<<


Paul is pretty reluctant when it comes to marriage/sex.

5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.


Sex motivated by sexual gratification is wrong, even if you are married.

"sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive [between spouses] purposes"


Luke 1
31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.


Mary is ACTUAL mother of Jesus Christ. Not surrogate. She conceived. This doesn't diminish God in the least, SHE is his means by which he chose.

 

[robycop3]

With all that sex going on it should be easy to produce a scriptural verse of the uterine siblings of Jesus as Wapole asked?

JoeT

VERY easy !

A little background: Jesus was telling parables & teaching in Nazareth. Some of the men He'd grown up among questioned the source of His wisdom.

Matt. 13:55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

So Mary had at least 7 other children, all conceived in the usual fashion, we assume. So much for her virginity after Jesus was born.[/COLOR]

 

[Particular]

Your error stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family. The use of “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use than we use today.

Using the Gospels, which you reference, we can see this to be the case.

St. Matthew (Mt. 27:56) and St. Mark (Mk 15:40) state the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to be Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth.


---> John 19:25: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

---> This Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas in Matthew 13:55.

---> Matthew abbreviates this list by simply naming the oldest two, James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 as this Mary’s (Cleophas) sons.


Ergo, when James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are called Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew 13:55, this can not mean uterine siblings based on the fact that St. Matthew names a different Mary as their mother.


So while Scripture says Jesus had "brothers" (and sisters), Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers as once again, in Jewish antiquity, "brother" had a much wider meaning than we modern Westerners use.

No forcing. Just reading what the text says.
It is you who is trying to force the text to mean something other than what it says.
Sadly, your church dogma takes precedence over the Bible and you will never honor God's word above your church dogma.
The gymnastics and pretzeling needed for your conclusion is quite impressive, however. Bravo.

 

[robycop3]

Now wait just a minute... is the OP claiming that in order for Jesus to be born sinless...that Mary had to be born sinless? Why stop with Mary? Was Marys parents also sinless?

what a foolish doctrine. Mary was a sinner like the rest of mankind.

I agree, Jordan. There's not one verse of Scripture saying she was anything but an ordinary Jewish "housewife", except for conceiving & giving birth to Jesus while she was still a virgin.

In Matt. 13:55-56, the men of Nazareth believed she was quite-ordinary, as the context suggests.

Evidently, Joseph died fairly-young. From the cross, Jesus charged John with looking after her.

 

[utilyan]

VERY easy !

A little background: Jesus was telling parables & teaching in Nazareth. Some of the men He'd grown up among questioned the source of His wisdom.

Matt. 13:55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

So Mary had at least 7 other children, all conceived in the usual fashion, we assume. So much for her virginity after Jesus was born.[/COLOR]

Where were those 7 at the cross? Jesus tells John that is his mother and John takes her to his home. Why not back home with her 7 other actual children?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'm a patient person, we can wait as many minutes as you like. OP is claiming that God acted through Mary to preserve her from sin, both original sin and actual sin. She received sanctification and justification at her conception, just as you receive them at Baptism your parents state of soul did not affect receipt of those graces.

Mary received all the graces you received at baptism, and more when she was conceived so that she remains without stain of sin throughout her life. Mary was not 'forced' into a spousal union with God, she accepted humbly and freely saying to God's emissary: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." [Luke 1:38].

Is it foolish? Please feel free to explain how Jesus Christ was born 'a man' from the womb of sin maintaining his humanity and Divinity in another way. How do you cram Divinity into a a soiled box keeping it clean? Read the second half of post 49 and tell us which of the philosophical categories you fit into: Ebionism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism or maybe Monophysitism? The only other way is through the Catholic Marian doctrines which maintains the view of Jesus Christ as God/man uniquely and inseparably joined, so much so that what is said of one can be said of the other.

JoeT

So your saying God needed Mary to bring forth a sinless Jesus.... even though God himself supposedly brought forth Mary sinless. If you don't see the irony here then there isn't much I can say to help you.

So basically God needed Mary to do for Jesus what he did for Mary?
Your whole theory is a contradiction. If God could cause Mary to come forth as sinless, then he certainly does not need Mary to cause the sinless son of God to be born.

 

[37818]

If baptism is not salvific, then it would be the first time in all of Scripture where the type / symbol of something exceeded the reality of it.

". . . when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: . . . " -- 1 Peter 3:20-21.

Respectfully two questions. First, how was Noah and family "saved through water?" Second, why go to the trouble of the exclution, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God?"

 

[Particular]

Where were those 7 at the cross? Jesus tells John that is his mother and John takes her to his home. Why not back home with her 7 other actual children?

Very easy.
They didn't believe he was the Messiah at that time. They were estranged and disbelieving. Mary believed.
However, note that after the resurrection Jesus brothers, James and Jude are inspired by God (Jesus) to write.

 

[JoeT]

So your saying God needed Mary to bring forth a sinless Jesus.... even though God himself supposedly brought forth Mary sinless. If you don't see the irony here then there isn't much I can say to help you.

God's plan didn't "need". However, God found it appropriate to act in the manner He did.

So basically God needed Mary to do for Jesus what he did for Mary

To my knowledge God has no "needs". Please don't put words in my mouth.

Your whole theory is a contradiction. If God could cause Mary to come forth as sinless, then he certainly does not need Mary to cause the sinless son of God to be born.

.
Unless He is righting a wrong. He's righting Eve's sin through Mary the New Eve. It was through Eve the first man sinned and brought death to himself and his progeny. It is through the New Eve death is overcome, bringing His life to the progeny of Adam.

JoeT

 

[MarysSon]

Not normal???
Let's extend your logic.
The neighborhood kids friendship was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
The Scribes and Pharisees interaction was not normal because they were in the presence of the Most High.
Pontius Pilates relationship with Jesus was not normal because he was in the Presence of the Most High.
Any interaction with Jesus is not normal because... Presence of the Most High.

God created sex, in the confines of marriage, as a glorious, God honoring, form of worship. It gives God joy to see humans in obedient behavior, of which sex in a marital relationship is beautiful and God honoring. Your attempt to deny this in Mary and Joseph is contemptible and a slap in God's face.

Everything in scripture points to Joseph and Mary being sexually active as husband and wife, just as any other husband and wife are sexually active. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was the mother of them all.
You have to do some incredible gymnastics with the text to explain away the fact that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a healthy sex life filled with children as a result.

Time for a Bible and linguistics lesson . . .

First of all – as @JoeT already stated – “Adelphos” is used in the NT brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, neighbor, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Another Protestant “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does NOT support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

The problem here is that you anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

 

[Particular]

No. Celibacy was a common practice. Even if you were married Paul suggested being celibate.

Through out time she is called the virgin, not the ex-virgin, or once virgin. When she picked up being handmaid of the LORD I guaranteed Joseph would have not that even if he were half as pious. Would you? As if you don't have enough on your plate raising GOD ALMIGHTY.


1 Corinthians 7

29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;


"from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;"

What does that mean? What is Paul saying here?......sounds catholic.



34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.


The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord.

one who is married is concerned about the things of the world,


>>>>> undistracted devotion to the Lord.<<<<<


Paul is pretty reluctant when it comes to marriage/sex.

5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.


Sex motivated by sexual gratification is wrong, even if you are married.

"sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive [between spouses] purposes"


Luke 1
31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.


Mary is ACTUAL mother of Jesus Christ. Not surrogate. She conceived. This doesn't diminish God in the least, SHE is his means by which he chose.

Read the entire passage in 1 Corinthians 7. Your claim is twisted.

1 Corinthians 7:17-40 Only let each person lead the lifethat the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

A surrogate mother conceives.

The placenta attatches to her womb. Otherwise the child would die of starvation.

In my opinion (and that is all it is) Jesus had no dna from Mary.

 

[Particular]

Time for a Bible and linguistics lesson . . .

First of all – as @JoeT already stated – “Adelphos” is used in the NT brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), relative, kinship, same tribe, neighbor, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Another Protestant “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the word “until”.
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? As we have examined – the Bible does NOT support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

The problem here is that you anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Nice gymnastics routine. Yet, you avoid the verses presented to you.

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

It seems that your church dogma trumps the Bible...as always.

 

[MarysSon]

You mean like Rahab, the great grandmother of David?
God chooses whom he wills.
Not once is Mary even suggested to be a new Eve. Your argument is filled with dogma created by your church, apart from God and his holy word.
If Mary was the new Eve, then Jesus would be married to his mom and we'd all call him Oedipus. He would be like the man who Paul tells the Corinthians to hand over to Satan until he repented.
So, your theory has more holes than Swiss cheese. But, odds are high you're going to cling to your fantasy anyway.

Time for another Bible lesson . . .

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom (or, vice versa). We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was NOT the Queen – but rather, his MOTHER was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah, meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the fulfillment of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is fitting that His mother should enjoy the same role that other Davidic Queen Mothers enjoyed, that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah.

NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT types. – without exception.