was mary a virgin?

[blugiant]

http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_virgin_birth.html

mary's virgin birth story is copied from pre-christian myths

intarestinn artikkle

wan aff da reason y dem roman censared ann bestroyed certain books aff da bible iss cah itt chatt bout mary being a maddar fore jesus. dat was wan aff da reason y da roman wage war against afrikkan versian aff christianitee dat predate da roman catoolick versian. imagine da roman catoolick took a known madder ann recast ar as a virgin cah dem add issues widd oomen sexualitee. a ooman woo add adder children iss natt pure enuff fe be da maddar aff dem messiah

imagine da bible sed mary add addar children ann dem change da bible fe mekk mary inna virgin ann brainwashed christians fe buy inn dat

[blugiant]

African religion

In “Black Africa," before the irruption of foreign—i.e. born outside of Africa—religions as Christianity and Islam, there was almost no “international” religion. In some places, the presence of Christianity and Islam is most ancient: this is the case of Christianity in Ethiopia, and of Islam in Somalia or on the coast of the Indian Ocean. Everywhere else, another language meant almost another religion. The horizons of a religion were almost those of a determined people or a tribe.



There are two consequences of that. First, since language, culture and religion are closely related, it is not always easy to make a clear distinction between what belongs to a particular culture or weltanschauung, and what belongs to religion. Nothing in fact belongs strictly and only to religion. Second, since languages, cultures and peoples or tribes are so numerous in Africa, there is not one Native Africa Religion, but thousands in fact.



It is true that almost most of, if not all, the Native African Religions share some common features. They belong to a major civilization area of the world which is distinct of that which exists on the other continents. It is therefore not illegitimate to consider them as a whole, as long as we continue to keep in mind the adverb “almost.” In other words, provided we remember that there are exceptions to whatever is said about the Native African Religions, we can speak about them in general.



Nevertheless it is still hard to speak of interreligious dialogue in such a context. There cannot be one interreligious dialogue since there is not one Native African Religion. In the context of “Black Africa,” there should be thousands of interreligious dialogues.



Besides, the Native African Religions have strongly suffered from the competition with the so-called world religions such as Christianity and Islam. Few, and usually remote, are the places where Native African Religions have been preserved as they were before the irruption of Christianity and Islam. In most places, the contact with Christianity and Islam has had a dramatic impact on the Native African Religions. In this new and modern context, the NAR could almost not survive as such. Yet, they have not disappeared. In most instances, they have merged with the new religions. They coexist with them, in the same individuals. Often then, the interreligious dialogue is not between two distinct individuals or groups, but within the very individuals and groups themselves. In Africa today, people continue to try to put together their traditional cultural and religious heritage with the religions brought to them by traders, missionaries and colonizers.



This being said, we will now see to what extent the teaching of the Catholic Church on Mary may be received in such a context and, since our perspective is dialogical, the heritage of the Native African Religions and weltanschauungs may contribute to the study and the understanding of Mary. But we will also note the difficulties that may arise from this dialogue.



Favorable ground



The Native African Religions are clearly monotheistic. There is only one God. The problem is that he is far away. People do appeal to him but only under extraordinary circumstances, for instance, when a danger is threatening the very existence of the whole tribe. Africans proclaim, as we Catholics, do that God created the world, visible and invisible. But whereas Catholics do not, ordinarily, pay much attention to the invisible world, the presence of the invisible world is strongly felt by Africans in their daily life. From them, the invisible world is very crowded with all sorts of beings: some of them, like the spirits, gentle or evil ones, have always been part of the invisible world; some, like the ancestors, were previously human beings; belonging to the visible world, they joined they invisible world after their death. All the beings of the invisible world can be called “intermediary” because they are not divine, they have been created, yet they are—all of them, the spirits as well as the ancestors—in control of the beings of the visible world. In fact, the concerns for the ordinary life of the visible world have been entrusted to these intermediary beings by God. Since God is far away, the intermediary beings are the ones who take care of our ordinary needs. Therefore Africans would invoke them, pray to them, offer sacrifices to them, etc.



In such a context, the tiding of an incarnate God, therefore of a very close God, was quite revolutionary in Africa. On the contrary, the veneration of a noble human mother who entered the invisible world even to the point of becoming Queen of Heaven did fit the African weltanschauung. The idea of a creature that has become powerful and influential in the invisible world, with direct and concrete impact on the visible one is accepted. It has been the destiny of many significant human beings who have become ancestors. Asking favors from Mary, seeking protection from her, praying to her to intercede—all these practices have been regarded as obvious and most welcome by Africans. For Africans, there is a strong solidarity between the visible and the invisible world. And the natural expression of this solidarity is mediation. The beings of the invisible world mediate between the beings of the visible one and God, among themselves, between themselves and the beings of the visible world, and among the latter. Resorting to mediation is strengthening solidarity; rejecting mediation is jeopardizing the vital and necessary solidarity existing among all the living beings.



Mediation implies relation. The African being is basically relational. And for Africans, the relational being par excellence is the mother. The mother is highly honored and venerated. The most honorable and respectful way to address a woman is to say to her “mother.” A child would never call his or her mother by her proper name; he or she would always say “mother” to her. He or she would also say “mother” to an aunt, to whatever other woman, even if she has no child. By contrast, there is no graver insult than insulting someone’s mother. That is why the greatest and most common title given to Mary in Africa is “Mama Maria”—“Mother Mary.” Mary is first and above all, “Mama Maria.”

If the mother is the relational being par excellence, this is particularly true about the relationship between a mother and her son, her male child, given the traditional practice of polygamy in most parts of Africa. Since men have a higher social status than women, the male whose fame can reflect on a female is not the husband, but the son. Women may have to share their husband with other women, but not their son. Perhaps also part of the explanation is to be found in the mystery of a female being giving birth to a male one. Motherhood itself is a mystery, the mystery of bringing a new life to the world. Therefore the mother has, in Africa, a sacred dimension because the mother links us to the very source of life. The relationship between a mother and her son is then even stronger because it adds to the mystery of motherhood.



Anyway, the higher the social status of the son, the higher the honor of the mother. In some places, women are named “Mother of X (name of the son)” and sons “Son of Z (name of the mother)” [compare Mark 6:3]. In many African capital cities, streets have been named after the mother of the chief of state, never after the father. The mother of the chief is the intercessor by excellence. A son will never refuse anything to his mother, even if he is the chief. The mother of the chief becomes the chief mother. If the son is God as is Jesus, his mother deserves the highest veneration. The fact that Mary is sacred because she is a mother is reinforced, enhanced by the fact that she is mother of God. Mary appears so as the very epitome of the sacredness of motherhood.



In Africa, the mother is the relational being par excellence because, when a woman gives birth, it is never for herself. It is primarily for the whole social group. Her child is a blessing for the whole group. The birth of Jesus is not only a blessing for Mary, but before all a blessing for the whole people of God. Moreover, if a child is raised first by his or her biological mother, the other women of the larger family are also directly involved in or concerned by his or her education. As a proverb from the Congo states, “If you have only one mother, you don’t have a mother.” Africans have therefore no difficulty in accepting Mary as another mother to them. Mary was given as mother to the beloved disciple according to John 19:25-27. As such, the faithful have become the offspring of Mary, and can rely on her protection since the primary role of any ancestor is to protect his or her descendants. Mary is therefore the natural, the most reliable, the most powerful, the most influential human ancestor of all the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.



On the other hand, John 19:25-27 tells also that if a birth is, in Africa as elsewhere, a source of blessing and hope, becoming a mother is not always without worries, even sorrow. Every mother is aware that the joy of birth is blended with concerns about the new life. Many are the dangers that threaten this new life. From the very beginning, the mother is involved in fighting against these dangers, and in protecting her child. The mother thus becomes the symbol of protection against evil, a role the Catholic tradition has very early, in a preeminent way, ascribed to Mary (see the Sub tuum praesidium).



Diseases or hunger are not the only threat for an infant or a little child in Africa nowadays. Violence and wars are also part of the picture. Africa abounds in refugees. Under these circumstances, African women may not only invoke Mary for help, they also can, at a “lower” level, identify with her. In this perspective, Mary is not only a mother, but also a sister, this sister of theirs who had to flee with her child in a foreign country, who had to look for her lost child for several days, who had to see her son crucified. The earthly destiny of Mary speaks to many in Africa.



This proximity of Mary is also significant and even crucial within the context of the inculturation of the Christian message. Curiously one can observe that a black Madonna is accepted more easily than a black Messiah. Beyond the ancient tradition behind that, there is no choice but to accept that the figure of Mary is rapidly absorbed by the different cultures of the world. Mary incarnates well. Artists of all over the world have represented Mary as a woman of their different peoples and cultures (see link). Often, these paintings or sculptures include the child Jesus bearing the same African, Asian or American features as his mother. But if Jesus is there fully inculturated, it is precisely because he is born by his mother. In Abidjan, in the Ivory Coast, there is an important Marian shrine called “Our Lady of Africa” (“Notre Dame d’Afrique”). Whereas people don’t speak of “Our Lord of Africa,” they speak of “Our Lady of Africa” (and of so many other places in the world).



It may be that we cannot imagine our mother being different from what we are, so strong is our relationship to her, and so real our identification with her. She is also the one who gives us our mother tongue. Mary is the one who gave Jesus his mother tongue. She is the one who incarnated Jesus into his culture, who inculturated Jesus. Of course, other people contributed to that, starting with Joseph. But Mary was definitely the primary agent of Jesus’ inculturation into the people of Israel of the first century. For Africans, this is obvious: in many places in Africa; fathers start to raise their boys once the latter have reached the age of about seven, that is, once they become able to start learning about their fathers’ professions.



Contributions



Inculturation should mean dialogue. The Christian message takes root in Africa, but at the same time, the African cultures nurture the new plant. In Africa, a mother is not only the one who has borne a child, but even more the one who has nurtured a child, who has raised a child. Up to the point that if a young woman abandons her newborn child, she will not be acknowledged as a mother. On the other hand, barren women are called “mothers” when they have had an active share in the raising of the children of the household or of the village. So, in Africa, Mary is mother first because she has raised Jesus, and only second because she has borne him, even though the former is not thinkable without the latter. Mary is therefore not only important because she has made the incarnation possible, but before all because she has made the inculturation possible. The appreciation of the figure and role of Mary is a reminder of the importance of inculturation and the need for it.

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryafrica.html

part 1

[blugiant]

part 2

Mary is mother before all because she has been an educator. Her role in the history of salvation is not limited to the moment of the Incarnation. She has also shaped the person of her son. Recently, an American scholar noted that the Magnificat may be considered as a summary of the teachings of Jesus. We should therefore not underestimate either the key role of Mary in the formation of the personality of Jesus, nor her influence on her son, on the future mission of her son. The African context would strongly support such a view. Due to this and the close mother-son relationship, when a son is admired, the praise reflects immediately and almost automatically onto his mother (the contemporaries of Jesus seem to have shared this point of view; see Luke 11:27). On the same line, if a son does not behave well, the mother is blamed. In any case, whenever a son appears, the mother is seen.



It is common among biblical commentators to say that there is very little about Mary in the New Testament. African readers would disagree. According to African anthropology, the New Testament says, on the contrary, a lot about Mary since the subject of the New Testament is her son, Jesus Christ. Of course, speaking of Jesus is an indirect way of speaking of Mary. Indirect, but nonetheless actual, real, concrete. The New Testament actually says much more about Mary than is admitted in an American or European context, for instance.



The fact that a barren woman may be called “mother” because of the share she has had in educating other women’s children, confirms the African reality or practice according to which a child may have several mothers. We have seen that such a practice is considered to be positive. All these mothers are therefore regarded as true mothers by the child. Given this, when Mary is presented as a new mother or as another mother to the faithful, this is not a mere symbolic statement or a pure spiritual reality.



On the contrary, Mary will be regarded as a true mother, an authentic one, a real one, a concrete one, from whom one may expect what is expected from any mother. African anthropology advocates a strong embodiment of the communion of saints, which is completely in line with the Word made flesh, with the Incarnation. And this is especially true and epitomized when Mary is considered.



Difficulties



Other aspects of African anthropologies, cultures and religions may, however, not be quite in line with the Catholic message about Mary. There is nothing surprising in that since that message arrived in Africa as something exogenous. In fact, in most parts of “Black Africa,” Catholicism came along with colonization and, thus, oppression, and was mediated moreover by centuries of European inculturation. It is no wonder that in such a context, the Catholic message has encountered some, conscious or unconscious, resistance. This resistance was military, but also and even more cultural. Besides, the irruption of Catholicism is, in spite of some early punctual attempts, relatively recent. It really started in the last decades of the nineteenth century. There have been numerous conversions and baptisms, but, as previously stated, the ancient Native African Religions, if overwhelmed, have demonstrated some resistance capacity and continue to shape and influence the African religious world. The consequence of this is a definite syncretism, in which the figure of Mary has a share. This is the other side of the coin of her remarkable inculturation ability. Perhaps this syncretism is an unavoidable step of the inculturation process that has to be cautiously accepted and integrated rather than simply and abruptly rejected.



On the other hand, fetishism understood as the attempt to get in control of the invisible world is related to witchcraft and magic, and therefore much more problematic because it eliminates the dimension of personal relationships that grounds the communion of saints. Fetishism is magic because it is automatic. The expected result is granted provided the required action is provided, whereas intercession, for instance, depends on the free will of the person with whom one intercedes, and respects that free will. This distinction, however, is often not well perceived and there is an easy shift from intercessory prayer to fetishist practice, especially in a context where fetishism has long been used, and where results are often desperately needed. Images and statues of Mary are easily used in fetishism.



As far now as the content of Catholic doctrine on Mary is concerned, if the motherhood of Mary is widely appreciated in the African context, this is not the case of her virginity. Africans do value virginity but usually only as a transitory or temporarily stage, not permanently or forever. Women are expected to stay virgins until they get married. Before all, however, they are expected to be fertile. Fecundity is much more praised than virginity. Bringing life is of a much higher value. A virgin mother is definitely something of a paradox. If the divine mystery is accepted, fecundity continues to take clear precedence over virginity. Mary remains “Mama Maria.” She is much less frequently invoked as “Virgin Mary.”



If Mary is definitely “Mama Maria,” she will also hardly be regarded as the “spouse” of her son within the frame of the “New Adam // New Eve” imagery or symbolism. The question of determining a symbolic “husband” for Mary is not only problematic because it appears as a result of an ancient theological tradition born outside of “Black Africa,” but also, much more recently, because it may result as an unwanted consequence of theological tradition developed by the current Church in Africa. Due to the fundamental importance of family in African cultures, many African bishops and theologians are advocating a new and more African representation of the Church or model for the Church, namely the Church as “Family of God.” Pope John Paul II himself used this formula in the document Ecclesia in Africa issued in 1995 (see paragraph 63).



The problem is that, in Africa, it is possible to imagine a family without a father, whereas it is totally unthinkable to envision one without a mother. The mother is the pillar of the family. Whoever says “family,” says “mother.” If the Church is then seen as the “Family of God,” God is obviously the Father of this family. But where is its indispensable mother?



In the mind of most of the Catholic faithful, the answer is clear: this mother is Mary. As a matter of fact, the spiritual maternity of Mary over all the faithful is admitted by Catholic theology. The drifting, however, is easy to perceive: if God the Father is the Father of the Church, if Mary is the mother of the Church, the Father and the mother are more or less placed on the same level. And here appears a new “Trinity”: the Father, the Mother and the Son. This drifting has also appeared on other continents than Africa. But it may be accentuated by the African representation of the Church as “Family of God.”



This consequence, however, is not inevitable. And African pastors and theologians are fully aware of this possible drifting or misunderstanding. The image of the Church as “Family of God,” with its newness and its richness, should not be discarded because of that. On the contrary, all of this is primarily a witness to the vitality of the theological reflection in Africa, and in particular about Mary.

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryafrica.html

[blugiant]

catolik use the word virgin as in spiritual purity not physical purity

no kia dem usinn da wurd as a physical puritee cah da underlieinn thyme aff dem versian aff mary iss dat god impregnated a veree yung gurl woo was pure.



Should the perpetual virginity of Mary be considered a dogma?
Also, does the doctrine convey a deeper meaning?

This doctrine underwent a period of discussion until the late fourth century when general consensus emerged. The earliest witness to the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to appear in the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 150). Tertullian (d, circa 220) denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. Origen (d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. In the East, St.Athanasius strongly defended Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus. Shortly after, St.Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. Around the same time in the West, Jovinian and Helvidius denied the perpetual virginity while Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 420) and Augustine (d. 430) staunchly defended it. After this time, monasticism spread widely and the value of consecrated virginity became better known and widely accepted. General agreement and clear teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary seem to have followed.

The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the 'three chapters' condemns those who deny:

that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her ...

These statements were not made in reference to a direct discussion of Mary's virginity. Hence, some argue that this statement was not a dogmatic definition, even though it was issued within a definitory document. For Catholics, such definitions may be made by the Episcopal college, in communion with its President, the Bishop of Rome, or by the Pope in virtue of his Presidency over the entire Episcopal college. Such definitions must be derived, at least implicitly, from the revelation closed at the death of the Apostles.

Though not an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I also issued an important statement affirming Mary's lifelong virginity:

If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.

After Constantinople II the title was universally accepted by the Church. Though already present in certain liturgical contexts, references to Mary's perpetual virginity were then propagated universally in the liturgical life of the Church. Hence, questioning the dogma's status as a 'definition' does not appear to be constructive. Note that some teachings which belong to the deposit of faith may not have been confirmed by a formal dogmatic definition (e.g. immortality of the soul?). This is often the case with teachings which have never been seriously contested.

There are other norms by which the Church may have assurance that a teaching has been infallibly revealed by God: consensus fidelium (i.e. general agreement among the entire body of believers "from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" [Lumen Gentium #12]); and "universal ordinary magisterium" (i.e. frequent authoritative teachings affirming one perspective on a topic given by the Pope alone, or by the episcopate in general). On the topic of Mary's perpetual virginity, we have double assurance that the teaching may be considered as infallibly revealed in light of the statement of the fifth Ecumenical Council and by virtue of its constant use in the life of the Church afterwards (i.e. consensus of the faithful and universal ordinary magisterium).

The dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is not merely a reference to a historical fact. This historical fact has a a deeper meaning, a spiritual dimension. It speaks of the radical character of her God-relatedness. The life of Mary exists only for, in and through God. Further, it speaks of the singularity of the Christ event. Finally, note that this teaching illustrates Mary's character as type of the Church:

Following the example of Mary, the Church remains the virgin faithful to her spouse ... For the Church is the Spouse of Christ, as is clear from the Pauline Letters (cf. Eph. 5:21-33; 2 Cor. 11:2), and from the title found in John: "bride of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:9). If the Church as spouse "keeps the fidelity she has pledged to Christ," this fidelity, even though in the Apostle's teaching it has become an image of marriage (cf Eph. 5:23-33), also has value as a model of total self-giving to God in celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven," in virginity consecrated to God (cf. Matt 19:11-12; 2 Cor.11:2). Precisely such virginity, after the example of the Virgin of Nazareth, is the source of a special spiritual fruitfulness: it is the source of motherhood in the Holy Spirit. (Mother of the Redeemer #43)

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html

[blugiant]

catolik use the word virgin as in spiritual purity not physical purity

da pope candemninn anee wan woo doan beelieve ann accept fe dem versian aff virginity aff mary. dat wan aff da reason y da catoolick claim dat dem ar da ulitmate ann final interpreters aff da bible


Though not an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I also issued an important statement affirming Mary's lifelong virginity:

If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.

After Constantinople II the title was universally accepted by the Church. Though already present in certain liturgical contexts, references to Mary's perpetual virginity were then propagated universally in the liturgical life of the Church. Hence, questioning the dogma's status as a 'definition' does not appear to be constructive.

[blugiant]

Mary's virginity and Matt. 1:25


The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Mary retained her virginity after the birth of Christ. It says in paragraph 510 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).

Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Answering the question can have a strong effect on subsequent doctrines. As far as Protestant theology goes, it makes no difference if Mary remained a virgin or not; but in Roman Catholic theology, it is very important since it elevates Mary to such a high degree that she seems almost like a goddess and receives titles such as co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, mother of the church, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the issue of her perpetual virginity in hopes of providing a more biblical position.

The word "virgin" in the New Testament is parthenos and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, "and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus."

This would seem pretty straight forward that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until the birth of Christ, and that after the birth of Jesus they had relations. The word "until" is a preposition and means, "up to that time, before a specified time, to the extent that."

Up to the time of: "I ate until I was stuffed." This means that I ate and stopped when I was full and designates a change of action. "I ate up to the time that I was stuffed."
Before a specified time: "You can't go until you've paid the fine." This designates a condition required before a change can occur. "You can't go before you've paid the fine."
To the extent that: I worked until I was exhausted. Signifying an effect or condition as a result. "I worked to the point that I was exhausted."

In Matt. 1:25 it says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until the birth of Jesus. The implication is that she stopped being a virgin after the birth of Christ when they consummated their marriage, but typical Roman Catholic apologists cannot accept this explanation. Instead, they say she remained a virgin and cite verses where "until" does not mean a change in condition. For example,

1 Cor. 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet."
Phil. 1:10, "so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ."
1 Tim. 6:14, "that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."

In each verse, the word "until" does not designate cessation of the condition mentioned. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet. In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ. In 1 Tim. 6:14 we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns. Therefore, the Roman Catholics say that Mary retained her virginity because the word "until" does not necessitate that she stopped being a virgin.

Of course, it is just as easy to find verses that show a change in condition.

Acts 20:11, "And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed."
Acts 23:12, "And when it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul."
Rev. 7:3, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads."

In each verse above, the word "until" designates a change in condition/action. In Acts 20:11 Paul talked with them until daybreak and then left. In Acts 23:12 evil men would not eat or drink until Paul had been killed. Rev. 7:3 prohibits harm to the earth, sea, and trees, until the bond servants were sealed.

Therefore, we can see that the word "until" is used in different contexts and it is not appropriate to look to other persons to see how the word is used and transfer the meaning of that word to Matt. 1:25. What are we to do?
Words mean what they mean in context

Context is the most significant thing we must look at when determining the meetings of words. The context of Matt. 1:25 is,

"Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus," (Matt. 1:22-25).

The context deals with a virgin bearing a child. Virginity here is the important topic, and Matthew clearly wants us to understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife. This is why Mary's virginity is cited in prophecy in the Old Testament and its fulfillment in the New. The issue of her virginity is primary since Jesus is the son of God, the divine Messiah. Matthew then tells us that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.
Conclusion

Is this conclusion airtight? No, it is not. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Whether or not they, and the Roman Catholic Church, are correct will ultimately be decided when we encounter the Lord and he reveals the truth to us in heaven. But whether or not Martin Luther, John Calvin, Roman Catholics, or anyone else believe Mary retained her virginity has no bearing on whether or not she did. We must always appeal to the primacy of Scripture and not to the opinions of theologians.

It is the opinion of CARM that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.
Objections Answered

Objection: While Jesus was on the cross, why didn't he commit his mother Mary to one of his brothers instead of John? If he had brothers and/or sisters, shouldn't Jesus have committed her to them? Since he didn't, therefore it must mean that he didn't have any brothers and sisters.
John 19:26-27, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household."

Answers:

"But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left Him and fled," (Matt. 26:56).
"Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered,'" (Matt. 26:31).
"I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons," (Psalm 69:8). Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm.
Matt. 13:55-56 says, "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
First, Jesus was separating himself from his mother, breaking the earthly ties (2 Cor. 5:16), and committing her to the one male disciple, John the Apostle, who was actually present and who apparently showed the greatest love for him by being there and possibly risking his own life in doing so. After all, everyone else had abandoned him.
In committing Mary to John, he was providing the best for Mary by not committing her to the siblings who had abandoned him. Also, he gave John a higher place than he gave to Peter regarding Mary. Notice that Jesus told Mary first to look to John, not John to Mary. This dispels any idea that Mary has any supremacy in the church. We later see in Acts that Mary took her place among (not over) the believers at a prayer meeting. "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers," (Acts 1:14).
Second, there is biblical evidence that Jesus had siblings.
Third, it is possible that, because He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of his brothers who had abandoned him (Matt. 26:31, 56), it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what he wanted. This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear his intention that John take care of Mary, not his own brothers

http://carm.org/marys-virginity-and-matt-125

[j-can]

{!!The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Mary retained her virginity after the birth of Christ. It says in paragraph 510 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).!!]

This makes me laugh.....As comedian George Carlin said when it comes to bull sh!t nothing beats religion.......

[blugiant]

{!!The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Mary retained her virginity after the birth of Christ. It says in paragraph 510 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).!!]

This makes me laugh.....As comedian George Carlin said when it comes to bull sh!t nothing beats religion.......

yuh seeinn da joke

catoolikk tekk a well known madder aff children ann mekk ar a virgin ann gitt peeps fe beeleeve dat nunsense cah dem nuh reason

itt iss written inn da bible dat mary add other children butt dem still cawlinn ar da virgin mary

give sum peeps proof dat dem altered da bible butt still deny itt

[blugiant]

Bible edit leave some feeling cross

Bible edit Mary a "virgin" or young "maiden"




Bible edits leave some feeling cross
New versions reflect modern scholarship but revive some reservations
By M. Alex Johnson Reporter
msnbc.com
updated


Easter may sound a little different this year.

It's purely a coincidence, but U.S. Catholics and Protestants alike are being introduced this Easter season to separate "official" updated translations of the Christian Bible, which arrive in the year the magisterial King James Version celebrates its 400th birthday.

But with millions of dollars in publishing revenue and the trust of millions of churchgoers hanging in the balance, the new versions aren't being met with universal acceptance.

While the changes may seem small, they are resounding throughout Christianity, whose many denominations formed or broke off from others over clashing interpretations of God's word.

The two new translations touch on some of the most sensitive issues behind those differences, particularly on the inequality of women in society and on the status of Mary and — by extension — the birth of Jesus. (An earlier version of this article said "the divinity of Mary." Most Christian denominations do not regard Mary as divine.)

'People,' not 'men'
Since its debut in 1978, the New International Version has been the Bible of choice for many evangelical and other Protestant Christians in North America, selling more copies than any other version. But a 2005 gender-inclusive edition called Today's New International Version was widely criticized after some evangelical denominations condemned it as being too liberal.

Members of the Committee on Bible Translation, a nonprofit organization of biblical scholars formed in 1965, hope their latest edition will avoid a similar fate. The new version drops "Today's" from the title and turns the clock back on some of the more controversial choices of the 2005 edition, reviving words like "mankind" instead of "human beings," while still avoiding generic references to "he" and "him."

Mark 1:17, for example, has been translated to read: "'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will send you out to fish for men.'" The new version changes "men" to "people"; in other verses, "forefathers" are called "ancestors."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, has thoroughly revised the Old Testament in its New American Bible, similarly changing many generic references to "mankind" in favor of gender neutrality. It also adopted language intended to "more clearly express the meaning of the original," it said — like changing "booty" to "plunder" or "spoils of war," because "booty" has a different, decidedly unbiblical meaning nowadays.

Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman" and pointed out that several other modern translations agree, including the Revised Standard Version, the monumental 1950s translation that was the basis for many of the Protestant revisions in use today.

Unlike the New International Version, which can be used in evangelical and other Protestant services, the latest New American Bible isn't yet approved for use in the Catholic Mass, the bishops conference said, because only the Vatican can grant such approval — a process that can take years.

It will nonetheless be highly influential in the United States as a study Bible officially approved by the U.S. bishops, who said it would replace the current version as the official text on the conference's website later this year.

Ancient accuracy in today's world
Translators of both new versions said the goal was to strike a balance between sometimes conflicting imperatives: fidelity to the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and readability that honors the sensibilities of a 21st-century audience.

"We have to be very careful about how we go about this, because we don't want to change the word of God easily or quickly," said Douglas J. Moo, chairman of the New International Version translation committee.

"But precisely because the Bible is a timeless document, we want it to speak to every generation of people, and as English changes and we learn more about the world of the Bible, we want to be able to put the Bible into the English that people are actually using," said Moo, a New Testament scholar at Wheaton College, a leading evangelical university in Illinois.

YouTube: Bible editor explains the changes

Not everyone thinks the committee got it right.

Deanna Brown, owner of Parable Christian Book Store in Kennewick, Wash., declined to stock the new version, saying it was "just too controversial." (The store will order it for pastors on request.)

Mary Beth Cain, a customer at the store, agreed with the decision, saying the new version's issues with gender and language were "really obscuring the real truth we need to focus on — that salvation is in Jesus Christ."

But Chip Brown, senior vice president of Bibles for Zondervan, the division of HarperCollins Publishers that has exclusive rights to publish the New International Version in North America, predicted that it would be "the translation of choice for millions of people around the world who want to read and understand Scripture in today's language."

To promote acceptance of the new translation, Zondervan said it would phase out the 1984 update of its popular 1978 version of the book, which many churches have continued to use during the translation controversies. That means no more copies will be printed to continue stocking the pews for denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, which rejected the 2005 modernization and stuck with the 1984 version.

The SBC — the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination — hasn't said yet what it will do. However, the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood has already said it will reject the latest New International Version, largely because of "over 3,600 gender-related problems" it had identified.

"Our prayer is that evangelicals will continue to be very discerning with regard to the Bibles that they purchase and will utilize those translations that are the most accurate," the council said in a statement.

The council is influential with the Southern Baptist Convention and its flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which trains many Southern Baptist pastors. The seminary's president, R. Albert Mohler Jr., is a member of the council, which is headquartered at the seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Read the new NIV translation

'It's not rewriting. It's retranslating.'
Similar concerns have greeted the Catholic bishops' revised New American Bible.

Many of the changes reflect new scholarship arising from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, translations of which were just beginning to emerge when the bishops last updated the New American Bible in 1970, said David Lyle Jeffrey, a Bible scholar at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and editor of "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature."

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves near Jerusalem beginning in 1947, include the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Their discovery has been a source of great controversy in Judeo-Christian scholarship ever since, with competing schools of thought arguing over whether the material should be canonized in the modern Bible and, if it is, what should and shouldn't be included.

"I suspect that the scholarship they reflect will have more value in the seminaries than in the pew — where some of these things may, in fact, confuse more than clarify," Jeffrey said.

That may especially be likely with the change from "virgin" to "young woman" in Isaiah, which has drawn a great deal of media attention, Jeffrey told the National Catholic Reporter.

Most popular

Mary Elizabeth Sperry, associate director of Bible Utilization for the bishops conference, said that change was an isolated revision and doesn't signal any update in the doctrine of the virgin birth.

"It's the same stories that you know. It's the same texts that you know," Sperry said. "But you're seeing them with greater precision and greater clarity. ... It's not rewriting. It's retranslating."

Msgr. Daniel B. Logan, pastor of Our Lady of the Sea Parish in Ponte Vedra, Fla., agreed, saying that change and others simply reflect that "English is a living language" and that "certain words mean certain things today, but they didn't meant the same thing" when earlier translations were published.

That consideration factored in to many of the changes in the Protestant New International Version, too, said Moo, chairman of the committee that oversaw the new edition.

"We're always working from basically the same original language texts, the Hebrew and the Greek of the originals, and we learn more again about what those words mean," Moo said. "And of course, as English changes, the translation of those words has to change sometimes.

"I hope those differences can always sort of remain in a charitable kind of context, but I think the differences themselves can just help us all learn better what the Bible is all about, and that's a great thing as far as I'm concerned."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/t/bible-edits-leave-some-feeling-cross/

[blugiant]

Bible edit leave some feeling cross

Bible edit Mary a "virgin" or young "maiden"




Bible edits leave some feeling cross
New versions reflect modern scholarship but revive some reservations
By M. Alex Johnson Reporter
msnbc.com
updated


Easter may sound a little different this year.

It's purely a coincidence, but U.S. Catholics and Protestants alike are being introduced this Easter season to separate "official" updated translations of the Christian Bible, which arrive in the year the magisterial King James Version celebrates its 400th birthday.

But with millions of dollars in publishing revenue and the trust of millions of churchgoers hanging in the balance, the new versions aren't being met with universal acceptance.

While the changes may seem small, they are resounding throughout Christianity, whose many denominations formed or broke off from others over clashing interpretations of God's word.

The two new translations touch on some of the most sensitive issues behind those differences, particularly on the inequality of women in society and on the status of Mary and — by extension — the birth of Jesus. (An earlier version of this article said "the divinity of Mary." Most Christian denominations do not regard Mary as divine.)



Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman" and pointed out that several other modern translations agree, including the Revised Standard Version, the monumental 1950s translation that was the basis for many of the Protestant revisions in use today.



http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/n...feeling-cross/

love oww dem hintinn dat mary was natt a virgin

wander iff dem will xxpose da secret books dat locked away

[blugiant]

Was Mary a Virgin Her Whole Life?
by Moisés Pinedo

The idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is critical to Catholic Mariology (see Herbermann, 1913, 15:459-472). Catholics maintain that Mary was a virgin, not only before and during the conception of Jesus, but also afterward, for the rest of her life. This idea is known as the “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary. But, was Mary a virgin for the totality of her life?

All Christians (or at least those who believe the biblical record is inspired) agree that Mary was a virgin when God’s angel informed her that she was with child of the Holy Spirit. Matthew is plain when he states: “Be**fore they [Joseph and Mary] came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (1:18, emp. added). Luke records Mary’s question upon hearing that she was to bring forth a son: “Can this be, since I do not know a man?” (1:34, emp. added). The word “know” in Luke 1:34 obviously was used not for “having an idea or notion about a man,” but in reference to “having conjugal relations.” [Mary thought it was impossible for her to have conceived a child since “she did not know a man.”] The word “know” comes from the Greek ginosko and, in the context of Luke 1:34, is “used to convey the thought of connection or union, as between man and woman” (Vine, 1966, 2:298). The Bible clearly teaches that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception (cf. Isaiah 7:14). But what about after giving birth to the Savior?

First, consider Catholicism’s ideas about virginity itself. If they define virginity as “the intact conservation of a woman’s hymen” (the membrane located in the vulva), naturally Mary would have “lost her virginity” at the moment of Jesus’ birth. The Bible records that Mary’s conception was miraculous (Matthew 1:18), but to say that her pregnancy, as well as her delivery, were miraculous would be a forced interpretation of the text.

Second, consider the word “till” in Matthew 1:25 (“and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son”), in connection with the word “before” in Matthew 1:18 (“before they [Joseph and Mary] came together”). The Greek phrase heos hou, translated “till,” does not necessarily imply that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth. However, as Lewis noted, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase is preceded by a negative, it “always implies that the negated action did take place later” (quoted in Miller, 2003). Most probably, Matthew’s use of the words “till” and “before” emphasizes an opposite post-condition to a virgin state. Also note that Matthew wrote his gospel account (between A.D. 40 and A.D. 70) after the events of his record had transpired. Thus, if he had wanted the reader to understand that Mary was a virgin for all her life, surely he would have been very clear on that matter. But his wording leads to an opposite conclusion.

Third, as Joseph pondered Mary’s sudden pregnancy (although they had not yet “come together,” according to Matthew 1:18), “an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife’” (Matthew 1:20, emp. added). This phrase (“to take to you Mary your wife”), as Barnes noted, means to “recognize her as such, and to treat her as such” (2005, p. 6, emp. added). God’s angel encouraged Joseph not only to take Mary, but to take her as his wife, not as a sister or a roommate for life. The truth is clear: Mary became Joseph’s wife in the absolute physical sense of the word.

Fourth, both Matthew (1:25) and Luke (2:7) record that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. “Firstborn” comes from two Greek words: protos, meaning first, and tikto, meaning to beget (Vine, 1966, 2:104). In these verses, Jesus is referred to as Mary’s first son, which may imply that Mary had more children after Jesus’ birth. It also is worth mentioning that while Luke referred to baby Jesus as Mary’s firstborn (prototokos; 2:7), one chapter earlier he referred to the infant John (the only son of Zacharias and Elizabeth) as Elizabeth’s son (huios; 1:57). This does not prove that Mary had other children, but adds to the weight of the case against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Other passages in the New Testament provide evidence to conclude, beyond any doubt, that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters who were born to Joseph and Mary sometime after they “came together” (Matthew 1:18). For example, Mark 3 tells us about a disturbance that arose while Jesus was teaching a crowd of people. “Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him” (Mark 3:31, emp. added; cf. Matthew 12:46-50). Mark also noted that the people around Jesus “said to Him, ‘Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You’” (3:32, emp. added). Not only did Mark identify these people as Jesus’ direct relatives, but he recorded that the multitude (who knew Jesus) identified the same group of people as His family. Additionally, when pointing out the superiority of His spiritual family over His physical family (who was looking for Him), Jesus said: “For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother” (Mark 3:35). Jesus’ statement emphasizes the unique and intimate relationship between Christ and His followers. He did not intend to convey that those who do the will of God are His spiritual cousins, but His spiritual brothers and sisters!

Matthew 13:53-58 is similar to Mark 3:31-35. Matthew records Jesus’ arrival in His hometown, Nazareth of Galilee, where He taught the people in their synagogue (13:54). When the people heard Jesus’ teaching, “they were astonished and said, ‘Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?’” (13:54-56, emp. added).

Various theories attempt to avoid the fact that Joseph and Mary had children together. One of the theories maintains that the “brothers” mentioned in Matthew 13 were His apostles. This theory fails to recognize that Jesus did not arrive at just any country but “to His own country” (13:54, emp. added). Those who identified Jesus’ brothers and sisters knew very well who Jesus was and who His close relatives were, as evidenced by the fact that they identified Jesus’ family members by name. One reason they marveled at His teaching was the fact they knew His earthly family consisted of ordinary people. It is ironic that many Catholics accept that the phrase “carpenter’s son” literally identifies Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, and that the phrase “His mother called Mary” literally identifies Jesus’ mother, while they deny that the phrases “His brothers” and “His sisters” literally identify Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. What kind of interpretation is that? Furthermore, even though the names James, Simon, and Judas (listed by the multitude) may remind us of the names of three of Jesus’ apostles (Matthew 10:2-4), no apostle was named Joses (Joseph—Matthew 13:55). It is clear that these “brothers” were not Jesus’ apostles. If “His brothers” refers to the apostles, pray tell, to whom does the phrase “His sisters” refer?

Luke offers more evidence that the men referred to as Jesus’ brothers could not be His apostles. In Acts 1:13, he identified the apostles (at this time only eleven) by name. Then, in verse 14, he added: “These all [the apostles of verse 13] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” (emp. added). Paul made the same distinction when he asked, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5, emp. added). There can be no doubt that “the brothers of the Lord’ about whom Luke and Paul wrote were a different group from the apostles.

Due to the weight of the biblical evidence, few Catholics maintain that Jesus’ brothers were His apostles. Rather, many of them have suggested that these “brothers” and “sisters” were His disciples or followers. But, again, the biblical evidence is overwhelming.

When the people identified Jesus in Matthew 13:53-58, they connected Him with a family composed of a “carpenter,” “Mary,” “His brothers” (James, Joses, Simon and Judas), and “His sisters.” Why would the people refer to Joseph and Mary and then connect them to His “spiritual family” (followers) in order to establish Jesus’ identity? Why would they have named only four of Jesus’ “followers”? John helps us to conclude that these “brothers” and “sisters” were not Jesus’ disciples or followers. In chapter seven of his gospel account, John tells us that “His [Jesus’] brothers therefore said to Him, ‘Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing’” (vs. 3, emp. added). John made a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and His disciples or followers. He went on to state that “even His brothers did not believe in Him” (vs. 5). By this time, Jesus’ brothers were not counted in the group known as “His disciples,” those who believed in Him. Luke also makes a distinction when, in Acts 1:14, he identifies a group known as Jesus’ brothers, while in verse 15 he gives the number of the disciples: “[A]ltogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty.” Although by the time the event of Acts 1 transpired, Jesus’ brothers believed in Him and were counted in the number of His disciples, they still were described as having been closely related to the Savior. Truth be told, these “brothers” and “sisters” were neither Jesus’ disciples nor His followers during His ministry.

Is it possible that these “brothers” and “sisters” were Jesus’ cousins or other near relatives? In trying to defend this theory, a Catholic apologist turned his attention to Joses (Joseph), one of Jesus’ brothers listed in Matthew 13:55. He argued that the Jews “never name their sons after their parents.... Therefore, Joseph cannot be the son of Joseph [the carpenter—MP]” (Zavala, 2000c). This conclusion is unfounded. First, tradition may reflect what a majority of people do, but it cannot accurately represent every individual case. It cannot be said that Jews “never name their sons after their parents.” Second, by Jesus’ time, Hebrew tradition had been influenced greatly by Greek and other cultures (e.g., Babylonian, Persian, etc.). As it happens with modern influence (e.g., Latin children called by English names), by this period Jewish tradition was a mixture of different customs. Third, Luke shed light on the Hebrew tradition of naming babies by Jesus’ time. Concerning the immediate time after the birth of John the baptizer, Luke recorded that the “neighbors and relatives...called him [John] by the name of his father, Zacharias” (1:58-59, emp. added). Why would Hebrew relatives and neighbors do so if it was not an accepted tradition? Luke further informs us that when Elizabeth (John’s mother) responded that the child “shall be called John” (vs. 60), they said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name” (vs. 61). The conclusion is clear (and shows the lack of Bible knowledge of some Catholic apologists): By Jesus’ time it was acceptable to name a son after his father. Therefore, Joseph (Joses—Matthew 13:55) refers to the son of Joseph the carpenter.

It is true that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew) uses adelphos (brother) with a broader meaning to refer to a near relative or kinsman who is not technically a brother. However, this use does not establish the meaning “cousin” for adelphos in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther has indicated, “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense [i.e., as cousins—MP]” (see Brown, 1975, 1:256). Lewis declared, even more emphatically, “‘Brothers’ (adelphos) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Therefore, interpreting adelphos as “cousins” only in New Testament passages that make reference to Jesus’ brothers is an arbitrary exegesis that lacks contextual and/or textual basis (see Miller, 2003).

Paul offers additional circumstantial evidence. When defending his apostleship before the Galatians, he declared that when he arrived in Jerusalem, he “saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother” (1:19, emp. added). This information fits perfectly with Matthew 13:55, where James is identified as one of Jesus’ brothers. Further, when Jude wrote his epistle, he introduced himself as “a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” (vs. 1, emp. added). As a way of confirmation, Matthew identified James and Jude as Jesus’ brothers. [NOTE: Contrary to what some Catholics have declared (e.g., Tapias, 2006; Arráiz, n.d.), this James, brother of Jesus, was not James the apostle (cf. Galatians 1:17-19) and, therefore, was not the son of Alphaeus, but the son of Joseph the carpenter. As far as we know, neither of the two apostles with the name James had a brother named Jude (cf. Matthew 10:2-3).]

If Jesus, indeed, had physical half-brothers, why did He commend the care of His mother to one of His disciples while on the cross (John 19:25-27)? Does this show that Jesus had no brothers who could take care of His mother? No. Jesus’ brothers disbelieved in Him during His ministry (John 7:5). [Apparently they became Jesus’ disciples after His resurrection.] This may have been the principal reason why Jesus trusted one of His apostles to take care of His mother instead of one of His physical brothers. Jesus always prioritized His spiritual family above His physical family (Matthew 12:48-50).

One last point should be discussed. It has been argued obstinately (as a “last ray of hope” for Mary’s “perpetual virginity”) that Mary had no more children after Jesus because the Bible never mentions “children of Mary” (see Salza, n.d.). Why is the specific phrase “children of Mary” needed when so many biblical passages, which we have mentioned previously, clearly indicate that she and Joseph had children together after Jesus’ birth? Do they need the specific phrase “children of Mary” to come to this conclusion? It is interesting to note that while some Catholic apologists refuse to believe that Mary had other children because the Bible does not record the phrase “children of Mary,” they accept and promote ideas and phrases, such as “Most Holy Immaculate,” “Ever Virgin,” “Mother of the Church,” and “Mother of God,” that the Bible does not mention, much less support.

Demonstrating that Mary had more children does not, in any way, impugn her dignity.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=2665

[blugiant]

Christian Deceptions: Case Study: How Mary Stays A Virgin

oonnoo go read diss artikkle iff oonnoo reallee waan fe ovatand da argument being raised qwestianinn mary virginity before da birth aff jesus

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/de0_mary.htm

Before the Birth of Jesus

Now has come the last age according to the oracle at Cumæ…Now too, the virgin goddess returns.
Virgil (70-19 BC), Eclogues, 4, 1.4

That Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus is at least supported by the gospels. Luke for example reports that she claimed to be a virgin at the time of the conception:

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34

Also she is referred to as a virgin on a number of occasions. The case therefore looks reasonably good, until we look into the matter a little more deeply. First it is notable that the oldest New Testament writings refer to Jesus as being born of a woman rather than of a virgin*. His human ancestry on the male side is assumed in Galatians 3 (see particularly verse 16). St Paul makes no mention of the Virgin Birth anywhere in his copious writings. Also, the earliest gospel, Mark, offers no nativity story at all. In fact the nativity story occurs only in two gospels, Matthew and Luke, and the versions are different and often contradictory. The older of the two, the Matthew gospel, makes little of Mary's virginity. He mentions it only once and then indirectly:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:22-3

This is a reference to a passage in the Old Testament:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel* Isaiah 7:14

A critical point is that in the original Hebrew the word translated as virgin in Isaiah is "almah , and "almah does not mean "virgin" but "nubile young woman", which is a different concept altogether. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word "almah is applied to harem girls and to young widows*. If the Hebrew text had meant to convey the idea of virginity, a more explicit word like bethulah could have been used*. The confusion apparently arose because the word "almah had been inaccurately translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean "virgin", rather than an alternative word for a girl such as neanis. So parthenos was the term that the Matthew author would have found in the Septuagint. This, therefore was the term he used as well, apparently unaware of the error in the original translation. Matthew's error has long been known. A Jew named Trypho pointed it out in the second century AD*.

What all this seems to suggest is that some Greek speakers invented the Virgin Birth in order to match a prophecy that they had misunderstood. It begins to look as though the virginity aspect was introduced to improve the match between a supposed Old Testament prophecy and Jesus" life story. As we have seen, a number of the details mentioned by the Matthew author seem to have been invented to fit in with real or imagined prophecies. Incidentally, the Orthodox Church, aware of this embarrassing situation, has found an explanation. It claims that the mistranslation in the Septuagint was made deliberately under the influence of the Holy Spirit as part of God's continuing revelation*.

The only other canonical gospel to mention Mary's virginity is the Luke gospel. The author of this gospel is universally accepted as having drawn upon the Matthew gospel, and it is more than possible that he took the virginity story from there. Neither in the Matthew nor Luke gospels are the events of the nativity referred to again after the initial story. Neither is the nativity mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. Sometimes the nativity stories are plainly at variance with the rest of the text. For example, after searching for three days Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the temple:

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. Luke 2:48-50

Mary and Joseph's failure to understand would be relatively unremarkable if they had thought Mary to be the ordinary mother of an ordinary child with an ordinary father. It is not however consistent with the knowledge with which the nativity stories credit them. Even after 12 years, one might suppose that a mother would not forget the words of angels, much less the fact that her child's father was God himself. What can be the explanation for this? Is the text reliable? The answer to this question has to be "no". The two nativity stories are widely acknowledged by Bible scholars to have been additions to the texts of the Matthew and Luke gospels. Moreover, a number of textual variants reveal the hands of interpolators. For example the genealogy of the Matthew writer is altered in different ways in different manuscripts, apparently to avoid naming Joseph explicitly as the father of Jesus*. Significantly, the earliest surviving Semitic version of Matthew, the Old Syriac Gospel, retains Joseph as the father*. Surviving manuscripts betray a range of amendments, not only in the genealogies but also throughout the texts, clearly made to avoid mentioning that Joseph was the real father. Indeed, there are so many that they provide a good academic case study in how "orthodox" Christians have deliberately corrupted their own scripture*.

There is no suggestion of Jesus being born the son of God in the Mark gospel. Instead he seems to have been adopted as a son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-12). Echoes of this event are still to be found in the other gospels, providing another set of inconsistencies.

If we discount the nativity stories as later additions, many anomalies are automatically removed from the New Testament. The author of Matthew, for example, had taken great trouble to trace Jesus" ancestry through Joseph to King David and ultimately to Abraham*, which would hardly be appropriate if Joseph was not his father. Elsewhere Jesus claims to be descended from David (Revelation 22:16). He is referred to as "the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3-4) and as being descended from the patriarchs (Romans 9:5 Jerusalem Bible). Mary and Joseph are explicitly mentioned as Jesus" "parents" (Luke 2:41), and as cited above Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus" "father" after finding him in the Temple. Jesus is also explicitly identified as the son of Joseph in John 1:45 and 6:42. The nearest any early writings come to attributing divine fatherhood to Jesus is in a passage by Ignatius of Antioch., who died around AD 107. In a letter to the community at Ephesus he introduced a divine influence into an otherwise conventional human conception: "Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God ..."*, and in another letter he referred to Jesus as being "truly of David's line in his manhood, yet Son of God by Divine will and power"*.

If we look at the beliefs of others that were in a position to know, such as the Jewish Christians known as Ebionites, we find that they denied the Virgin Birth, regarding Jesus as "the child of a normal union between a man and Mary"*. So did other early sects (like the Carpocratians ), and so did important early Church figures like Jovinian. According to early non-believers, Jesus' real father was a Roman centurion named Pantheras*, an accusation that is supported by the Talmud and other Jewish documents.

If the two gospel nativity stories are unreliable, there is no basis for the belief in the Virgin Birth. On the other hand there are many reasons for doubting it. We know that the Jews never expected the Messiah to be born of a virgin, and it is clear enough that the Matthew author did only because of a mistranslation. We know that the Matthew author liked to arrange matters to match Old Testament prophecies. Elsewhere, Jesus" human ancestry is assumed, and in some instances, which escaped the attentions of editors, Joseph is named as the father. We even have evidence of editors erasing mention of Jesus" human father from the text. All in all, the case for doubting the story of the Virgin Birth is a strong one.

[blugiant]

First it is notable that the oldest New Testament writings refer to Jesus as being born of a woman rather than of a virgin*.

A critical point is that in the original Hebrew the word translated as virgin in Isaiah is "almah , and "almah does not mean "virgin" but "nubile young woman", which is a different concept altogether. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word "almah is applied to harem girls and to young widows*. If the Hebrew text had meant to convey the idea of virginity, a more explicit word like bethulah could have been used*. The confusion apparently arose because the word "almah had been inaccurately translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean "virgin", rather than an alternative word for a girl such as neanis. So parthenos was the term that the Matthew author would have found in the Septuagint. This, therefore was the term he used as well, apparently unaware of the error in the original translation. Matthew's error has long been known. A Jew named Trypho pointed it out in the second century AD*.

it has been long known dat they took a mother ann made here into a virgin ann got peeps to not qwestian da contradictions

What all this seems to suggest is that some Greek speakers invented the Virgin Birth in order to match a prophecy that they had misunderstood. It begins to look as though the virginity aspect was introduced to improve the match between a supposed Old Testament prophecy and Jesus" life story. As we have seen, a number of the details mentioned by the Matthew author seem to have been invented to fit in with real or imagined prophecies. Incidentally, the Orthodox Church, aware of this embarrassing situation, has found an explanation. It claims that the mistranslation in the Septuagint was made deliberately under the influence of the Holy Spirit as part of God's continuing revelation*.

wow

The two nativity stories are widely acknowledged by Bible scholars to have been additions to the texts of the Matthew and Luke gospels. Moreover, a number of textual variants reveal the hands of interpolators. For example the genealogy of the Matthew writer is altered in different ways in different manuscripts, apparently to avoid naming Joseph explicitly as the father of Jesus*. Significantly, the earliest surviving Semitic version of Matthew, the Old Syriac Gospel, retains Joseph as the father*. Surviving manuscripts betray a range of amendments, not only in the genealogies but also throughout the texts, clearly made to avoid mentioning that Joseph was the real father. Indeed, there are so many that they provide a good academic case study in how "orthodox" Christians have deliberately corrupted their own scripture*.

interesting

If we look at the beliefs of others that were in a position to know, such as the Jewish Christians known as Ebionites, we find that they denied the Virgin Birth, regarding Jesus as "the child of a normal union between a man and Mary"*. So did other early sects (like the Carpocratians ), and so did important early Church figures like Jovinian. According to early non-believers, Jesus' real father was a Roman centurion named Pantheras*, an accusation that is supported by the Talmud and other Jewish documents.

wat a ting iff dat troo

[blugiant]

Perpetual Virginity

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
Bertrand Russell , Sceptical Essays

On the evidence Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is no reason at all to suppose that she remained virgo intacta during the birth of Jesus, and the evidence for her having been a virgin before the birth is questionable.

It is not difficult to see how the Virgin Birth story might have arisen. Early Christians were embarrassed that their leader was reputed to have been illegitimate. In the Hellenic world, where gods often impregnated human women, an obvious solution for any illegitimate putative leader was that a deity was the father. This had the dual advantage of explaining the illegitimacy and introducing an element of the divine. An Old Testament passage about a birth to a virgin apparently provided the key to the solution, or it would have done, had not the passage contained a critical mistranslation.

Many modern theologians accept that the story of the Virgin Birth is a myth designed to emphasise Mary's purity. It follows an established pattern, and may well have been based on existing stories. For example the mother of the Buddha was believed to have conceived without the aid of her husband. The infant emerged not by normal means but through his mother's side. She died soon afterwards "because it is not fitting that she who bears a Peerless One should afterwards indulge in love" (Mahavastu 21).


Despite all the evidence Mary still purports to retain her virginity, at least for the time being. The trick is done by tampering with the original texts, retaining known errors of translation, inserting suitable confirmatory material into sacred texts, rejecting the plain meaning of words in favour of contrived meanings, and glossing over contradictions and inconsistencies. All this is an open secret. No Church scholar of any standing denies it. But then none openly advertises it either, so the faithful masses remain in ignorance.

[blugiant]

mii wander oww da religious peeps wood feel iff da proof cum out dat mary was nat a virgin before she add jesus?

imagine iff dat storee aff mary was bout a mother widd child or children woo add an illegitimate baby out aff wedlock?

imagine iff da church turn a mother woo was known to ave children into a virgin to lessen da stigma aff out aff wedlock birth and brainwashed religious peeps inna acceptinn da known lie?