THE BOTTOM LINE: Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary's "FIRSTborn" (prōtotokos)... but for the widow with only one child in Luke 7, the son is called her "ONLY-BORN" or "only son" (monogenēs). Luke could've used that Greek word for Jesus, but didn't because he knew Christ had siblings.
Also that isnt quite what "Tokos" means. Theotokos means "God-bearer". Ancient Greek is not a simple language and isnt remotely the same as modern English. Some rando on the internet is NOT smarter than the Magistereum.
Also apply that same logic to Jesus and the Eucharist, He couldve said "sumbulon" meaning "symbol" but He didnt. Now the verse says "This IS my blood". Do you believe in transubstantiation then?
@waypasttheline That Mary-idolatry dies hard, huh? You never addressed the argument in the video. You merely called him a "rando on the internet" to dismiss his argument. Ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.
There's nothing unbiblical about perpetual virginity this was the view held by all Protestants except modern evangelicals particularly baptists. The other siblings have been understood to be children of Joseph from a previous marriage or cousins
@@ziffy88 "nothing unbiblical about perpetual virginity" NOTHING? Did you watch the video, he cited specific verses, you know, the ORIGINAL eyewitnesses? "The other siblings have been understood to be children of Joseph from a previous marriage or cousins" understood by who? citations please.....sounds like a lot of eisegesis for your RCC blanket
@@johnnyappleseed5029 by the verse in Matthew, by the lack of words to define cousins and half brothers and by Ezekiel 44:1-2 have been historically understood to be about Christ born of a virgin
For those who believe she was a perpetual virgin must also have to come to terms that she is a fallen sinner like the rest of us and is in need of the Lord and Savior.
@QuietlyContemplating How was she born? Did she have the same inherited sinful bloodline as Adam? If she was sinless, then why did she need a savior according to Luke 1:47?
It's a constantly evolving false religion. When we show them irrefutable proof that their demonic doctrines are incorrect, they simply shift the exact same evil doctrine so that it's slightly more difficult to prove. Catholics do say that Mary was sinless now. This doctrine of demons is newish. No ancient Catholic writing says anything like that. What they don't seem to realize is that they are accusing her of sin. Read 1 Corinthians 7. We are not to withhold our bodies from our spouse. So both Mary and Joseph participated in this sin.
@LordiValimartti , does blessed mean sinless? Does favored mean sinless? Does "The Lord is with thee" mean sinless? When are Catholics going to read about David? He was a murderer and an adulterer. One of the worst sinners in the Bible. He was severely punished for his horrible sins. Yet, he was a "Man after God's own heart". He was blessed. And he found favor in God's sight. Everything that is said about Mary is said about her ancestor. So, what are you trying to have us see in this verse? And, why don't Catholics ever read just a little further? Luke 1:46-47. Sinless people do not need a savior. Jesus (the only sinless person) never claimed to need salvation. But Mary, a sinner, did claim to need salvation. God warned Catholics to, come out of her my people so that you don't partake of her sins and share in her plagues (Revelation 18:4). Don't listen to me. I'm nobody. Listen to God who gave you a very specific warning.
Yes. Matthew 13:54-56 HCSB [54] He went to His hometown and began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “How did this wisdom and these miracles come to Him? [55] Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? [56] And His sisters, aren’t they all with us? So where does He get all these things? ”
James and Joseph are named as the sons of Clopas and the Other Mary. It is not a far stretch to say the other "siblings" (adelphoi) were also cousins or close friends.
Catholic doctrine is wrong about a lot of things. Mandatory celibacy for priests is arguably the worst, since it defies God's specific instructions, laid down in I Cor. 7. When men decide they know better than their Creator, it doesn't go well.
In 23 out of 24 rites of the Catholic Church, married priests are common. The Latin rite is the one with celibate priests but exceptions are made. The Latin rite still has some married priests.
What Catholics accuse Mary of doing is a sin (1 Corinthians 7). They pretend that she didn't do something that was pure and right, and accuse her of doing something that was evil and disgusting.
Many Catholics argue that the brothers mentioned on the verse were actually His cousins that were raised by Mary and Joseph and that the people at the time just didn’t have a word for cousins. Aside from what you already said, Mordecai was clearly stated as Esther’s cousin much MUCH earlier than this. While it is true the languages were different, it’s hard to believe Greek would be THAT far behind from Hebrew at that point in time to not have a word for cousin.
Wow this glosses over a lot. Besides numerous Church Fathers like Jerome and John Chrysostom showing why Mary remained a virgin and these passages do not disprove that. Many early Protestants such as Luther and even Calvin in some way asserted Mary's perpetual virginity. The passage about brothers and sisters is not adequately explained since the Greek does not differentiate between siblings and cousins. Likewise, there is also the possibility that they are children Joseph had previously. The passage from Matt 1:25 also does not mean that Joseph knew her in this way after. St. John Chrysostom points out several other passages in the Bible like this. Furthermore, why would Jesus entrust Mary to John the beloved when he was on the cross if she had other children to care for her? This would have been a direct snub to them and made no sense.
@ElessarofGondor. Ok, fair enough. But my series in my playlist goes into great detail and does not "gloss" over anything. It's called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - 1: Biblical or Unbiblical False Doctrine?" Appealing to late "Church Fathers" does not help you. Where do the first century fathers argue for Mary's alleged perpetual virginity? Where do the apostles or Jesus argue for this? Nowhere. And you are wrong about what the Greek differentiates. Greek is very flexible and vibrant, and has specific words that can be translaved "cousin" or "kinsmen," so that you do not have to use "brothers" to speak of "cousins." For example, we see the Greek word for "cousin" used in Colossians 4:10. There's another Greek word used to translate as "relative" in Luke 1:36 to refer to Mary's relative Elizabeth. So, this means you need to do better research before making claims not supported by the evidence in Scripture. The problem with what St. John Chrysostom and others do when they get to Matt. 1:25 is that they fail to realize the fallacy in using passages with different Greek construction than what's in Matthew to argue for a different interpretation of what's being said in 1:25. The arguments for the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary are weak and merely ad hoc rescue attempts to support a doctrine never taught by Jesus or the apostles, or the earliest, first century church leaders. I suggest you do better research.
@@CRoadwarrior So even if the Greek does have other words that might better signify cousins, this does not exclude that meaning from the terms used. It also does not rule out the possibility of family who were so close they were regarded as siblings. I for example, have cousins whom I grew up with and regard as siblings and even refer to as such occasionally. Yet they are not my flesh and blood siblings. This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. These passages can be interpreted in several ways and at the very least do not exclude the other possibilities mentioned (even mainline protestants like Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists don't have a problem with perpetual virginity). In order to fully understand them you need the authority of the Church given by Jesus to his Apostles which is passed on to their successors. Furthermore, I see no reason why this teaching would need to be found directly in the scriptures or earliest Church Fathers in order to be true. This was unanimously decided in the 500s at an ecumenical council and is held to today by most Christians outside of a part of the Reformed tradition. It seems problematic to suggest that the Church was in grave error for nearly 1000 years from this time until the Reformation began.
@@ElessarofGondor Now I see excuse making. You made a false claim about Greek, but instead of admitting what this means, you ad hoc rescue. Let's be honest here and deal with the facts. If the NT writers wanted to say Jesus had "cousins" we know they had specific words to use. I suggest you have a look at my detailed series to learn what you clearly do not know and have not bothered to study in any detail. The problem is not with Sola Scriptura. Jesus only quoted Scripture and said that we live by the word of God, and the apostles mainly quoted Scripture. The passages cannot truly be interpreted in "several ways." They only can either be interpreted correctly, or incorrectly. But without accurate understanding and knowledge, or if you have a pet doctrine to protect, you can read INTO Scripture what's not that, something we call eisegesis, from the Greek prefix "eis" meaning "into." But we are supposed to do "exegesis," taken from the Greek prefix "ex" meaning "out of." A teaching needs to be in Scripture for it to be true because of what Jesus said. What did He say in John 17:17? "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. We know God's word is truth. We know Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus because Scripture tells us. We know Jesus was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth because Scripture tells us. We know Jesus had disciples because Scripture tells us. Let's not start playing games about how we know truth about Jesus and people mentioned in the Bible now, just because we want to cling to a LATE claim about Mary. I don't care about any late councils or declarations. I care about what Jesus said we live by in Matthew 4:4. And nowhere in Scripture did He claim truth came from anything else but Scripture, God's word.
@@CRoadwarrior I admit that I misrepresented the Greek originally, in implying that the exact word for cousin and brother were the same. But again, the problem with those passages is more than that. It's that they don't explicitly deny or confirm a single possible scenario. At least 3 possibilities exist. 1. Jesus had biological siblings born of Mary. 2. Jesus had step-siblings born from a previous marriage of Joseph. 3. The siblings were just close family members like cousins etc. Using scripture alone you cannot justify one over the other. It is entirely possible that the gospel writers used brothers to refer to situations 2 and 3. Jumping over, Sola Scriptura is entirely problematic because we find no reference of it in history prior to the late middle ages. On the contrary, we see early Church records referring repeatedly to the authority of Bishops and Councils. The Doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the NT, but is yet hinted at in several OT and NT passages (not unlike Mary's role in salvation). That is a teaching proclaimed by the authority of the Church. And I agree that passages have a correct meaning, the problem is how do you know if you're right? Is it just a feeling that you are confirmed in it by the Holy Spirit? The guy down the road at the next church might disagree with you and say that he has that same feeling.
@@ElessarofGondor Well it's great you are honest enough to admit misrepresenting the Greek. But by claiming that the texts do not "deny or confirm a single possible scenario," you are betraying your bias. For example, if the Biblical writers wanted us to think or believe that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus were step-siblings, they were quite capable of making that plain. Take how Paul described Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:2 by calling him not just a "son" but "my true son in the faith." The words "in the faith" make clear that he was not saying Timothy was his biological son. Paul did the same thing in Titus 1:4 by calling Titus his true son "in our common faith." So if you know the linguistic range of choices the Bible writers had, opting for your option 2 doesn't hold up. It only holds up if you ignore what Scripture reveals in its composition and structure. In other words, had they meant to convey "step-siblings" they could have easily done it, but they didn't. So we can't speculate our way to the option, the option must present itself in the text. And it doesn't. And your option 3 won't work because had the writers wanted us to believe that they were "cousins" or or close family members other than blood brothers or sisters, they could have used either the Greek word "anepsios" used in Colossians 4:10, or the Greek word "syngenēs" used in Luke 1:36. So considering the Greek vocabulary, option 3 goes out the window. It is only "entirely possible" that options 2 and 3 are possible if you ignore the facts. Ignoring or irrationally dismissing facts is never a good idea, and it hardly leads to truth. So the only real option that's left is one that you cannot accept, not because of what Scripture says, but because of a prior commitment based on what you were taught. But if you let Scripture speak for itself, you come to the conclusion that Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin because she had other children with her husband Joseph, which means she obviously had sex with him, something natural and normal for married couples. As for Sola Scriptura, the actual name or label is not relevant. What does the Bible say? What did Jesus say? Matthew 4:4: "...‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus here is clearly referencing Sola Scriptura, and He was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, which of course is LONG before the Middle Ages. [Luk 16:17 NKJV] 17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." What is this talking about? The longevity of the word of God (Scripture), or Sola Scriptura. Bishops and councils are fine, but God's word preceded them going back all the way to Moses, the Torah and the prophets. As for how we know what the correct interpretation is, we have what's called basic reading comprehension, study of the original languages, and good old hermeneutics and keeping passages in context. For example, the word "bat" has more than one meaning. It could either be a wooden stick used in a game of baseball, or it could be a flying mammal. How do we tell which definition fits? By immediate context. So if you encountered the sentence, "Hank Aaron hit a homerun using his favorite bat," it would be nonsensical to somehow argue that "bat" in such a sentence could possibly mean "a flying mammal." No, not if you pay attention to the facts in the immediate context surrounding the word in question. Of course the Spirit plays a key role in correct interpretation (because unlike church leaders and authorities, the Spirit is everywhere with all believers), and so helps us use proper hermeneutics to do good, sound exegesis. The guy down the street who tries to argue for the "flying mammal" interpretation of the above sentence is convicted as being wrong by sound hermeneutics guided by the Spirit, and simple logic that says two contrary claims cannot both be correct. One must be right and the other wrong, or both are wrong. So I cannot buy the claim, against all Biblical evidence, that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus. Scripture says otherwise, and Scripture is truth.
A counter-argument I've heard (though I'm not sure what to think of it myself), is that Joseph was much older than Mary and was a widower, and Jesus' brothers and sisters were HALF siblings through Joseph from his previous marriage. I haven't seen or read anything that would support that position, though, other than working backwards from the 'conclusion' that Mary MUST have been a life-long virgin, therefor we need to construct some way to make that possible without contradicting scripture.
The scripture doesn’t say anything about Joseph being a widower and that He had children from a previous marriage. If people are claiming this is true, ask them to point it out in the Bible. Simple.
The bible said Joseph didn't know Mary (sexually) until after Christ Jesus' birth, so while she was a virgin before, she most likely didn't stay a virgin after. See Matthew 1:18-25. " Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was *espoused* to Joseph, *before they came together*, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 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. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: *and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son*: and he called his name JESUS. " Matthew 1:18-25 KJV
They'd need more than one donkey to go to Bethlehem on, if there were at least 6 other children with pregnant Mary & Joseph (4 half brothers + sisters plural).
@@Payne2view This is a good point, but honestly the only people I've ever seen say Joseph was significantly older than Mary are muslims. They do it to "justify" the paedophilic relationship between Mohammed & Aisha. I've never seen it used for any other reason.
The term firstborn in Luke 2:7 (“And she gave birth to her firstborn son”) has significant theological and cultural meaning in both Jewish and Christian contexts, but it does not necessarily imply that Mary had other children. 1. Why the Gospel of Luke uses the term firstborn In Jewish tradition, the term firstborn (Greek: prototokos) is a title of status and honor. The firstborn son had special rights and responsibilities, such as: Inheritance rights (Deuteronomy 21:17). Religious significance: The firstborn male belonged to the Lord and had to be redeemed according to Jewish law (Exodus 13:2, Numbers 18:15-16). The use of firstborn in Luke emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Jewish law and his consecration to God. It highlights his unique role as Mary’s son, without implying subsequent children. 2. Catholic understanding of Mary as “ever-virgin” Catholic theology holds that Mary was a perpetual virgin (semper virgo), meaning she had no other children besides Jesus. This belief is rooted in: Sacred Tradition: The early Church Fathers, such as St. Jerome and St. Athanasius, affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity. Biblical interpretation: The use of firstborn in Luke does not necessarily mean there were other children; it is a legal and cultural designation. Additionally, other terms like “brothers and sisters of Jesus” (e.g., Matthew 13:55-56) are understood as referring to close relatives, such as cousins or kin, in accordance with broader Semitic language usage. 3. Justification based on theology Catholics justify the use of firstborn and Mary’s perpetual virginity through a combination of Scripture, Tradition, and reason: Scripture is silent on Mary having other children: Nowhere in the Bible is Mary explicitly said to have other children. The focus remains on Jesus as her only son. Typology and Mary’s unique role: Mary is often seen as the Ark of the New Covenant, consecrated entirely to God, just as the Ark in the Old Testament was set apart (Exodus 25:10-22). Her virginal motherhood signifies her total dedication to God’s plan. Early Christian belief: By the second century, Christians were already honoring Mary as Aeiparthenos (Ever-Virgin), reflecting a consistent tradition that she bore only Jesus. Luke’s use of firstborn reflects Jesus’ legal and religious status, not a claim about siblings. Catholics interpret this term in light of their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is supported by early Church tradition, scriptural typology, and the absence of any definitive mention of other children in Scripture.
Read the Bible - Mary had at least 6 other children after she gave birth to Yeshua; and the Greek word used to describe the brothers of Yeshua is adelphos, which in the context of Yeshua’s brothers means brothers. If the brothers of Yeshua were His cousins, the Gospel writer would have used the Greek word for cousin - which is anepsios. But the Gospel writers didn’t use anepsios to describe the brothers of Yeshua, they used adelphos, Shy? Because Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin!
She is a virgin when she is not. She is sinless when she is not and Peter was the foundation if the church when he was not. Yeah just being consistent!
Mary remained virgin until she had Jesus. She was married to Joseph and had subsequent children. Listed in scripture. Why do you have a problem with this?
Because the scripture doesn't say that. St John Chrysostom points out several other points in the Bible where this sort of language is used but that conclusion does not follow. The translation of Jesus's siblings is also open ended enough not to exclude cousins and step siblings from Joseph in a previous marriage. Lastly, if she had other children why did Jesus charge John to look after her when he was on the cross? This would have been unneeded if she had other sons or daughters to take her in. This highlights the problem of Sola Scriptura. The passages here leave the question open ended. Even some Protestants will side with Catholics on this. The only option is to appeal to the authority of the Church and what has been passed down in sacred Tradition from the successors of the Apostles.
At least two of the children listed in scripture are stated (in scripture) as the children of another woman named Mary and Clopas/Cleopas (Matthew 27:56, John 19:24, Luke 24:10, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1)
Then Joseph, arising from sleep, did just as the Angel of the Lord had instructed him, and he accepted her as his wife. 25 And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.
"until" is used for emphasis in Matthew 1:24, not a change of condition. If "until" always means a change of condition, then that must mean that once all of Jesus's enemies are under his feet, he will cease to be king (1 Cor 5:25) or that Saul's daughter Michal became pregnant after she was dead (2 Samuel 6:23). The bible tells us that Jesus's brothers James and Joses (aka Joseph) were in fact the biological sons of Clopas (aka Cleopas) and the Other Mary. It is not a far stretch to say the other "siblings" were friends or close relatives but not biological siblings. At the crucifixion, Jesus entrusted Mary to John. If Mary had other children, she would've been entrusted to them. Also, the same word to describe the relation between Jesus and his disciples (adelphoi) was used to describe the relation between Abraham and Lot. If the it means biological sibling, then that means Abraham was both Lot's uncle and brother. Eww.
I think you need to include how the Catholic and Orthodox explain their reasoning for interpreting the verses that call James & Jude JESUS' brothers as not referring to actual brothers and why we can have confidence their interpretation is wrong.
Im catholic. Idk man. Its probably dangerous to not venerate and respect virgin mary. We can pray to Virgin mary. But shes literally THE MOTHER OF GOD! so shes a virgin but for the birth of jesus. Not her other children. Protesrants largely disrespectful to Mother of GOD. And my Catholic Priest Father mark told me ITS MY FAULT i let protestants influence me! It is! So stop spreading misinformation!!!
Best secular critique of this bad doctrine of sexuality can be found in the book The Name of the Rose by Herman Hesse. What did Karol Woytyla said on the theology of the body about Mary?
She [Mary] had to be born-again by her Son [God in flesh] Jesus Christ as her Lord & Saviour [God The Son] to have eternal life since she was a born sinner in this world like everyone of us. [Born in Adam to born-again in Christ]. St. John 1:13, St. John 6:44, Ephesians 1:4-6. We can’t understand how the sinless God The Son was conceived in a sinful women’s womb without SIN. [St. John 8:46]. It’s a glorious Miracle & Mystery God only know. What a great and glorious Mystery which we can never understand with our finite minds in this world ! Deuteronomy 29:29. [In the next world, we may know since 1 John 3:2 states, in Lord Jesus Christ’s second coming we will be like HIM].
Through the Holy Spirit. God knew what He was doing when He chose Mary. It makes sense why Jesus was sinless cause of Him being born through the Holy Spirit. The rest of us are born through man.
@@Coronaboii88 that’s true my dear friend. But, can you explain with your finite mind, that how Christ was born sinless when HIS fleshly mother was sinful [in Adam] who was born of a man ? That’s the question !
@@Coronaboii88 That’s true. Lord Jesus Christ was truly God and truly Man. Two natures in One Person. That’s also a Mystery. But, I think you haven’t understood the question & this is not the answer to the question…
This is very good, but Roman Catholics have made up answers to just about all of the passages you brought up about the brothers and sisters of the Lord. I would suggest something more detailed and comprehensive from my playlist called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - 1: Biblical or Unbiblical False Doctrine?" This series goes indepth into the Greek of the New Testament and part of the Septuagint in dealing with the Catholic "answers" that don't really hold up.
Whenever the subject of Jesus brothers and sisters come up , Catholic would argue that they were His “cousins”. Yet not once have I ever heard a reason why they believe Mary didn’t have any other children. Now I understand why. It’s because Mary is so “Holy” that If she had any kind of sexual relations with Joesph it would be sacrilege.
Well there's also the issue of Jesus telling John to take her in when he was on the cross. That wouldn't make much sense if he had siblings who would look after their own mother. Celibacy is something that some people are called to but not all as St. Paul testifies. Certain protestant groups were so mad at the Catholic Church that they developed this idea that taking a vow of virginity was somehow anti-Christian.
@@ElessarofGondor the reason his brothers and sisters weren’t at the cross is because they didn’t believe in him. I’ve also yet to hear from a catholic why Mary didn’t have any other children. I already know the reason. I just wanted to hear their side.
@@dionoram Where does it say his siblings didn't believe in him? And how would that prevent them from caring from their own mother after the fact? As far as why Mary didn't have any other children, a lot goes to her being set aside for a special role by God. She was to be the mother of us all spiritually and a symbol of the Church. Her perpetual virginity also means that the virgin birth wasn't just a neat trick etc, but that Mary had a major role in salvation history. Tradition within the Church also supports this. Major figures like St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom all point to this being the case.
@@ElessarofGondor Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection. (John 7:5)Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion. The only reason you believe Mary was a virgin her whole life is because if she had any sexual relations with Joseph it would sacrilege.
Hmmm how do we know Mary wasn’t a virgin after Jesus? How about the books of James and Jude in the Bible? Were they written by no one or Jesus’ little brothers (2 of the 4)? See Mark 6:3.
I dont believe that Mary stayed a virgin. I will call her blessed. Blessed to be chosen as the vessel that God chose to come to us to dwell with us. 🎉😊
Actually yes. The people at the time were speaking a language known as Aramaic. This is essentially slang Hebrew. In the Hebrew language, the word for brother, cousin, and neighbor is the same. This is also where the tradtion of calling someone else in the faith, Brother X, comes from. I think.
I verified this myself, and disproved this. It's a common teaching of Roman Catholics that Jesus had cousins. Ancient Greek did have a specific word for cousins, distinct from brother or sister. The Catholic teaching is false.
@TickedOffPriest The New Testament was translated from Greek. Where ever the Gospels list Jesus as having brothers and sisters, a Catholic is taught that there wasn't a word in the original Greek for cousins. This is just false.
@@QuietlyContemplating Do you have any idea how many times subtext changes between language? If I took every word in the KJV and translated it into Swahili, so much context would be lost. The subtext of these men and women are lost when being translated into Greek.
I would like to point out that most people just assume that those named were younger. It was not that uncommon for a man that already had children to marry another woman. 1 Corinthians 15:20-26 Look at verse 25, does this mean that after Jesus has put all enemies under His Feet, He will not reign? Nonsense! 1 Timothy 4:13-16 Look at verse 13, does this mean that if Timothy ever saw Paul again, Timothy would never again preach? Nonsense! 2 Samuel 6:20-23 Look at verse 23, does this mean that she had children after she died? Nonsense! I like that you mentioned Wesley who taught Mary's perpetual virginity. You missed Martin Luther (Lutheran Church), Huldrych Zwingli (Baptist Church), Thomas Cramer (Anglican Church), and John Calvin (Calvinist and Presbyterian Churches).
Not scripture, writings of mere men. Where in the whole of the inspired Word is it substantiated that Mary had no other children? Right, not in scripture. Do not add to or take away from the Word.
@@carolhub8080 I believe this actually shows why Sola Scriptura is unsustainable. Here we have passages that leave several possibilities. Arguing from scripture alone here will not suffice as evidenced by the fact that this is an issue that divides Protestants as well. You need the authority of Christ given to his Apostles and their successors.
@@ElessarofGondor Also, scripture never defines itself or tells the reader to adhere to sola scriptura, rendering it an unscriptural doctrine. The only way to come to sola scriptura is to look to an infallible authority outside of scripture.
I'm curious as to why you think RC theology is so bad? Have you ever read any of the early fathers or looked at early Church history? It would be a far safer bet to side with Catholics and Orthodox on many things.
@@ElessarofGondor Reading the early fathers and studying church history brought me to precisely the opposite conclusion - so much which was never in the apostolic ministry, and not even in the early fathers, has been accumulated by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox 'churches'.
@@thebowshot9341 So what do you make of Ignatius's mention of the Eucharist and Bishops? Or even more with what Irenaeus has to say on it? Or Clement seeing fit to express authority over a church half a world away? No one is saying everything the Catholics teach is found explicitly in the Fathers, but the seeds are there. And more importantly, many things that evangelical protestants reject are found. Take for example the Eucharist. It is abundantly clear that the early Church believed that Jesus was in someway present in the Eucharist. We find no historical evidence of the Church calling it purely symbolic until the late middle ages. Even earlier protestant groups like Lutherans and Calvinists believed that Christ was present in some way (lutherans believe in consubstantiation and calvinists tend to believe in spiritual presence) , but the purely symbolic view that we see among evangelical groups today is nowhere present.
@@ElessarofGondor I believe Ignatius's words as to the Eucharist are open to interpretation, and as to bishops that they laid the foundation for a great deal of later corruption (although he couldn't have foreseen that). There are seeds there, for sure, but they're the seeds of decay -of decline from the inspired word of God, and dependence upon what's uninspired to introduce all kinds of evil. I disagree as to the doctrine of the Real Presence being abundantly clear in the early fathers - it is anything but clear, and the language used by be interpreted in various different ways. Where this is the case, we must get ourselves back on to the solid ground of scripture, and see clearly that the Lord's Supper is held in remembrance of Him.
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." - John Calvin. Reformed theology makes God out to be worse than the devil.
Putting aside the immucalate conception, jesus was born sinless, thought he still was baptised. If his mother had inheritance original sin, Jeaus' human nature should have inheritance it from the human bloodline. Perhaps St Mary was immalucate and free from original sin
brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother. Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples: 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”) Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.” Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Martin Luther: "Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writings and the Jews always call cousins brothers." Another quote from Luther "Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble (that Joseph knew Mary afterwards). . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. Petrus Van Mastricht - "But whether or not she remained a virgin after the Savior’s birth was completed cannot be determined with certainty from Scripture, because on one hand it seems less probable that the vessel once impregnated by the Holy Spirit was afterwards known carnally by a man (cf. Ezek. 44:1-2), and on the other hand the Scriptures do not lack statements that seem at first glance to suggest that it was consummated (Matt. 1:18, 25; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3)."
@@carolhub8080 No one said Luther said is the author of Scripture. Nor that he was right in all things. The point was that almost all of the reformation branches, held not a strict but a nuanced view of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was only until late sects that went to the other extreme that is taught in this video. Also, to say this opinion means a high while that of Luther, Mastricht and other reformers means a low view of scripture is absurd
@@carolhub8080 If Matthew 1:25 is the basis for disproving Mary's perpetual virginity, then you would have to also believe that Michal became impregnated after she died (2 Sam 6:23).
@@WC3isBetterThanReforged Luther is a man only. Scripture says Mary had other sons, so I don’t care what Luther said. Mary was born of a man and a woman and thus sin was imputed to her and she was not a perpetual virgin either. She does nothing to intercede,only Jesus does that.
@@carolhub8080 i didn't say anything about luther. Question though. Did Michal get pregnant after she died? And scripture never says mary had other sons. It says Jesus had brothers, an ambiguous term as it's used in the Bible.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. The Bible makes it clear she didnt stay a virgin. He knew her not UNTIL she had Jesus. Knew in this context is reffering to intercourse it is an old English way to say it. Catholics are stupud
@@SabbatarianCalvinist - If they were already married, would she have not been a virgin? Do you have a Biblical reference to say they were already married?
There are three passages of Scripture that pertain specifically to the time of Joseph and Mary’s betrothal, the consummation of their marriage, and the birth of Jesus: Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-56; Luke 2:1-7. Each passage reveals something about their relationship as well as the cultural mores of that time. In Bible times, Jewish marriage customs regarding a couple’s engagement were far different and much more stringent than those we are familiar with today, especially in the West. Marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom and often without even consulting the couple to be married. A contract was prepared in which the groom’s parents paid a bride price. Such a contract was immediately deemed binding, with the couple considered married even though the actual ceremony and consummation of the marriage would not occur for as long as a year afterwards. The time between was a sort of testing of fidelity with the couple having little, if any, contact with each other. It was during this betrothal period that the angel Gabriel visited Mary and told her of her impending pregnancy. It’s no small wonder that Mary was so inquisitive of the angel; she was still a virgin and would know no man sexually for several months, maybe as long as a year or more (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:34). Joseph soon became aware of Mary’s pregnancy, and this no doubt was cause for consternation on his part: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19). Jewish custom allowed that they be considered as husband and wife, though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The point is being made that Joseph and Mary had experienced no sexual contact with each other, as verse 18 “before they came together” points out. So, Joseph was in a quandary. Jewish law provided that his betrothed, because of her unfaithfulness, could be placed before the elders for judgment and stoned to death. But he was thinking to just put her away quietly without public knowledge. Betrothals or marriage engagements in those ancient times were binding and could only be terminated by an official divorce decree. It was then that the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 1:20-25) and explained to him that all this was bringing about the fulfillment of prophecy that a virgin would bear a child who was to be the Savior (Isaiah 7:14), and “he [Joseph] did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Luke 2:1-7 also confirms the idea that Joseph and Mary, though betrothed, were considered as husband and wife by Jewish customs even though the actual marriage ceremony had not been fully effectuated. So, Joseph and Mary were actually legally married before the birth of Jesus though their marriage was not consummated physically until after His birth.
As I understand Jewish marriage tradition at the time they were betrothed, which was similar to being married in that there were vows that had been taken and so on, but a marriage ceremony had not yet taken place, after which it would be proper for the two to concentrate the marriage by their coming together. In that way it is similar to how the church is the bride of Christ now, and yet we look forward to the marriage feast that is yet to come when we will know Jesus more intimately. The point is that yes they were married... kind of, but they were also in the period where it would be acceptable to divorce on grounds of infidelity since the two did not yet 'know' eachother.
@@robmc120 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39)
That is the Roman Catholic explanation, yes, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that Joseph was a widow, significantly older than Mary, or had any other children. It is all extra-biblical and apocryphal.
@@AdirondackRuby - But is there anything in the Bible that says otherwise? Understood, they're speculating, but the lack of details does tend to open itself to speculation.
@@TodaysDante This is just a random thought, and not one I've studied in depth, but Jesus was the heir to the throne of David, yes? Legally, through Joseph's line, that would go to his firstborn. If Jesus were younger than his brothers, they would have valid claims over Jesus to the title of "King of the Jews."
According to every Protestant Reformer, including the ones from whom you're deriving your theology - no, Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus, with the possible exception of children from an earlier marriage of Joseph's.
Mary's other so-called children were actually the children of another Mary. Read the last chapters of the Gospels and you will find it. It is a pity that Protestants cannot outgrow their ignorance.
This speaker is quite ignorant of Holy Scripture! According to him, Jesus is the biological child of Joseph, "is this not The SON of Joseph ". The word BROTHER does not always denote of the same womb! Plus, the word until does not always denote a change takes place after! The speaker is simply providing his own fallible interpretations! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
It isn’t novel. That Matthew passage is strong. Besides that, there’s no hint of the doctrine of perpetual virginity until at Jerome wrote about it. That’s 350 years where the doctrine is never mentioned.
@@daylightsober6138well there's other extra biblical sources that held that view. The Muslims rejected that view because they view the purpose of a wife is to have sex with the husband The Matthew text uses the same word as later when Christ says I will be with your unto the end of the world and had been accepted to mean now and forever Unless you're saying all of christiandom was wrong for so many years till the Baptists came along
![The Perpetual Virginity of Mary [Why I Changed My Mind]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DfgKAUlbWMI/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Perpetual Virginity of Mary [Why I Changed My Mind]](/img/tr.png)
![Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity [REBUTTED]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NfALS3RZLcw/mqdefault.jpg)
THE BOTTOM LINE: Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary's "FIRSTborn" (prōtotokos)... but for the widow with only one child in Luke 7, the son is called her "ONLY-BORN" or "only son" (monogenēs). Luke could've used that Greek word for Jesus, but didn't because he knew Christ had siblings.
Mary is Mother of ALL True Christians
Also that isnt quite what "Tokos" means. Theotokos means "God-bearer". Ancient Greek is not a simple language and isnt remotely the same as modern English. Some rando on the internet is NOT smarter than the Magistereum.
Also apply that same logic to Jesus and the Eucharist, He couldve said "sumbulon" meaning "symbol" but He didnt. Now the verse says "This IS my blood". Do you believe in transubstantiation then?
@waypasttheline
That Mary-idolatry dies hard, huh? You never addressed the argument in the video. You merely called him a "rando on the internet" to dismiss his argument. Ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.
@@QuietlyContemplatingyou're being nestorian
RCC is decidedly antibiblical on numerous grounds, thanks for bringing this to light Gabe! May God bless you always!
There's nothing unbiblical about perpetual virginity this was the view held by all Protestants except modern evangelicals particularly baptists. The other siblings have been understood to be children of Joseph from a previous marriage or cousins
@@ziffy88"Understood" by what evidence?
@@ziffy88 "nothing unbiblical about perpetual virginity"
NOTHING? Did you watch the video, he cited specific verses, you know, the ORIGINAL eyewitnesses?
"The other siblings have been understood to be children of Joseph from a previous marriage or cousins"
understood by who? citations please.....sounds like a lot of eisegesis for your RCC blanket
@@johnnyappleseed5029 by the verse in Matthew, by the lack of words to define cousins and half brothers and by Ezekiel 44:1-2 have been historically understood to be about Christ born of a virgin
Catholicism is anti-Christ. I am certain that the whole "church" was created by Satan himself.
For those who believe she was a perpetual virgin must also have to come to terms that she is a fallen sinner like the rest of us and is in need of the Lord and Savior.
@QuietlyContemplating How was she born? Did she have the same inherited sinful bloodline as Adam? If she was sinless, then why did she need a savior according to Luke 1:47?
It's a constantly evolving false religion. When we show them irrefutable proof that their demonic doctrines are incorrect, they simply shift the exact same evil doctrine so that it's slightly more difficult to prove.
Catholics do say that Mary was sinless now. This doctrine of demons is newish. No ancient Catholic writing says anything like that.
What they don't seem to realize is that they are accusing her of sin. Read 1 Corinthians 7. We are not to withhold our bodies from our spouse. So both Mary and Joseph participated in this sin.
@QuietlyContemplating yes, my mistake🫣 have a blessed new year
@LordiValimartti i have, she is highly favored. It doesn't mean that she is sinless and the other savior
@LordiValimartti , does blessed mean sinless? Does favored mean sinless? Does "The Lord is with thee" mean sinless?
When are Catholics going to read about David? He was a murderer and an adulterer. One of the worst sinners in the Bible. He was severely punished for his horrible sins.
Yet, he was a "Man after God's own heart". He was blessed. And he found favor in God's sight. Everything that is said about Mary is said about her ancestor. So, what are you trying to have us see in this verse?
And, why don't Catholics ever read just a little further? Luke 1:46-47. Sinless people do not need a savior. Jesus (the only sinless person) never claimed to need salvation. But Mary, a sinner, did claim to need salvation.
God warned Catholics to, come out of her my people so that you don't partake of her sins and share in her plagues (Revelation 18:4). Don't listen to me. I'm nobody. Listen to God who gave you a very specific warning.
Yes.
Matthew 13:54-56 HCSB
[54] He went to His hometown and began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “How did this wisdom and these miracles come to Him? [55] Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? [56] And His sisters, aren’t they all with us? So where does He get all these things? ”
Those are His apostles and disciples, not blood siblings.
James and Joseph are named as the sons of Clopas and the Other Mary. It is not a far stretch to say the other "siblings" (adelphoi) were also cousins or close friends.
@@southernlady1109NOT WHAT BIBLE SAID…CALLED THEM HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS….DR.BRYANT LANE.,,DO NOT ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM SCRIPTURES.
@@mpr4christ1980 they are talking about His brothers and sisters of His Kingdom. Virgin Mary conceived and gave birth only to Jesus Christ!
Catholic doctrine is wrong about a lot of things. Mandatory celibacy for priests is arguably the worst, since it defies God's specific instructions, laid down in I Cor. 7. When men decide they know better than their Creator, it doesn't go well.
The worst is their *Anathematizing of the Gospel* at the Council of Trent, where Rome became utterly and eternally *Apostate* !
In 23 out of 24 rites of the Catholic Church, married priests are common. The Latin rite is the one with celibate priests but exceptions are made. The Latin rite still has some married priests.
@simeonyves5940 where did they anathemetize the gospel?
What Catholics accuse Mary of doing is a sin (1 Corinthians 7). They pretend that she didn't do something that was pure and right, and accuse her of doing something that was evil and disgusting.
🎯 👉 Verses 3-5.
Many Catholics argue that the brothers mentioned on the verse were actually His cousins that were raised by Mary and Joseph and that the people at the time just didn’t have a word for cousins. Aside from what you already said, Mordecai was clearly stated as Esther’s cousin much MUCH earlier than this. While it is true the languages were different, it’s hard to believe Greek would be THAT far behind from Hebrew at that point in time to not have a word for cousin.
And John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin.
Jesus ✝️🙏🏻
Wow this glosses over a lot. Besides numerous Church Fathers like Jerome and John Chrysostom showing why Mary remained a virgin and these passages do not disprove that. Many early Protestants such as Luther and even Calvin in some way asserted Mary's perpetual virginity. The passage about brothers and sisters is not adequately explained since the Greek does not differentiate between siblings and cousins. Likewise, there is also the possibility that they are children Joseph had previously. The passage from Matt 1:25 also does not mean that Joseph knew her in this way after. St. John Chrysostom points out several other passages in the Bible like this. Furthermore, why would Jesus entrust Mary to John the beloved when he was on the cross if she had other children to care for her? This would have been a direct snub to them and made no sense.
@ElessarofGondor. Ok, fair enough. But my series in my playlist goes into great detail and does not "gloss" over anything. It's called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - 1: Biblical or Unbiblical False Doctrine?"
Appealing to late "Church Fathers" does not help you. Where do the first century fathers argue for Mary's alleged perpetual virginity? Where do the apostles or Jesus argue for this? Nowhere.
And you are wrong about what the Greek differentiates. Greek is very flexible and vibrant, and has specific words that can be translaved "cousin" or "kinsmen," so that you do not have to use "brothers" to speak of "cousins." For example, we see the Greek word for "cousin" used in Colossians 4:10. There's another Greek word used to translate as "relative" in Luke 1:36 to refer to Mary's relative Elizabeth. So, this means you need to do better research before making claims not supported by the evidence in Scripture.
The problem with what St. John Chrysostom and others do when they get to Matt. 1:25 is that they fail to realize the fallacy in using passages with different Greek construction than what's in Matthew to argue for a different interpretation of what's being said in 1:25.
The arguments for the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary are weak and merely ad hoc rescue attempts to support a doctrine never taught by Jesus or the apostles, or the earliest, first century church leaders. I suggest you do better research.
@@CRoadwarrior So even if the Greek does have other words that might better signify cousins, this does not exclude that meaning from the terms used. It also does not rule out the possibility of family who were so close they were regarded as siblings. I for example, have cousins whom I grew up with and regard as siblings and even refer to as such occasionally. Yet they are not my flesh and blood siblings.
This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. These passages can be interpreted in several ways and at the very least do not exclude the other possibilities mentioned (even mainline protestants like Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists don't have a problem with perpetual virginity). In order to fully understand them you need the authority of the Church given by Jesus to his Apostles which is passed on to their successors.
Furthermore, I see no reason why this teaching would need to be found directly in the scriptures or earliest Church Fathers in order to be true. This was unanimously decided in the 500s at an ecumenical council and is held to today by most Christians outside of a part of the Reformed tradition. It seems problematic to suggest that the Church was in grave error for nearly 1000 years from this time until the Reformation began.
@@ElessarofGondor Now I see excuse making. You made a false claim about Greek, but instead of admitting what this means, you ad hoc rescue. Let's be honest here and deal with the facts. If the NT writers wanted to say Jesus had "cousins" we know they had specific words to use. I suggest you have a look at my detailed series to learn what you clearly do not know and have not bothered to study in any detail.
The problem is not with Sola Scriptura. Jesus only quoted Scripture and said that we live by the word of God, and the apostles mainly quoted Scripture. The passages cannot truly be interpreted in "several ways." They only can either be interpreted correctly, or incorrectly. But without accurate understanding and knowledge, or if you have a pet doctrine to protect, you can read INTO Scripture what's not that, something we call eisegesis, from the Greek prefix "eis" meaning "into." But we are supposed to do "exegesis," taken from the Greek prefix "ex" meaning "out of."
A teaching needs to be in Scripture for it to be true because of what Jesus said. What did He say in John 17:17? "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. We know God's word is truth. We know Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus because Scripture tells us. We know Jesus was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth because Scripture tells us. We know Jesus had disciples because Scripture tells us.
Let's not start playing games about how we know truth about Jesus and people mentioned in the Bible now, just because we want to cling to a LATE claim about Mary. I don't care about any late councils or declarations. I care about what Jesus said we live by in Matthew 4:4. And nowhere in Scripture did He claim truth came from anything else but Scripture, God's word.
@@CRoadwarrior I admit that I misrepresented the Greek originally, in implying that the exact word for cousin and brother were the same. But again, the problem with those passages is more than that. It's that they don't explicitly deny or confirm a single possible scenario. At least 3 possibilities exist. 1. Jesus had biological siblings born of Mary. 2. Jesus had step-siblings born from a previous marriage of Joseph. 3. The siblings were just close family members like cousins etc. Using scripture alone you cannot justify one over the other. It is entirely possible that the gospel writers used brothers to refer to situations 2 and 3.
Jumping over, Sola Scriptura is entirely problematic because we find no reference of it in history prior to the late middle ages. On the contrary, we see early Church records referring repeatedly to the authority of Bishops and Councils. The Doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the NT, but is yet hinted at in several OT and NT passages (not unlike Mary's role in salvation). That is a teaching proclaimed by the authority of the Church. And I agree that passages have a correct meaning, the problem is how do you know if you're right? Is it just a feeling that you are confirmed in it by the Holy Spirit? The guy down the road at the next church might disagree with you and say that he has that same feeling.
@@ElessarofGondor Well it's great you are honest enough to admit misrepresenting the Greek. But by claiming that the texts do not "deny or confirm a single possible scenario," you are betraying your bias.
For example, if the Biblical writers wanted us to think or believe that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus were step-siblings, they were quite capable of making that plain. Take how Paul described Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:2 by calling him not just a "son" but "my true son in the faith." The words "in the faith" make clear that he was not saying Timothy was his biological son. Paul did the same thing in Titus 1:4 by calling Titus his true son "in our common faith."
So if you know the linguistic range of choices the Bible writers had, opting for your option 2 doesn't hold up. It only holds up if you ignore what Scripture reveals in its composition and structure. In other words, had they meant to convey "step-siblings" they could have easily done it, but they didn't. So we can't speculate our way to the option, the option must present itself in the text. And it doesn't.
And your option 3 won't work because had the writers wanted us to believe that they were "cousins" or or close family members other than blood brothers or sisters, they could have used either the Greek word "anepsios" used in Colossians 4:10, or the Greek word "syngenēs" used in Luke 1:36. So considering the Greek vocabulary, option 3 goes out the window.
It is only "entirely possible" that options 2 and 3 are possible if you ignore the facts. Ignoring or irrationally dismissing facts is never a good idea, and it hardly leads to truth. So the only real option that's left is one that you cannot accept, not because of what Scripture says, but because of a prior commitment based on what you were taught. But if you let Scripture speak for itself, you come to the conclusion that Mary could not have been a perpetual virgin because she had other children with her husband Joseph, which means she obviously had sex with him, something natural and normal for married couples.
As for Sola Scriptura, the actual name or label is not relevant. What does the Bible say? What did Jesus say? Matthew 4:4: "...‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus here is clearly referencing Sola Scriptura, and He was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, which of course is LONG before the Middle Ages.
[Luk 16:17 NKJV] 17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." What is this talking about? The longevity of the word of God (Scripture), or Sola Scriptura.
Bishops and councils are fine, but God's word preceded them going back all the way to Moses, the Torah and the prophets.
As for how we know what the correct interpretation is, we have what's called basic reading comprehension, study of the original languages, and good old hermeneutics and keeping passages in context.
For example, the word "bat" has more than one meaning. It could either be a wooden stick used in a game of baseball, or it could be a flying mammal. How do we tell which definition fits? By immediate context.
So if you encountered the sentence, "Hank Aaron hit a homerun using his favorite bat," it would be nonsensical to somehow argue that "bat" in such a sentence could possibly mean "a flying mammal." No, not if you pay attention to the facts in the immediate context surrounding the word in question.
Of course the Spirit plays a key role in correct interpretation (because unlike church leaders and authorities, the Spirit is everywhere with all believers), and so helps us use proper hermeneutics to do good, sound exegesis.
The guy down the street who tries to argue for the "flying mammal" interpretation of the above sentence is convicted as being wrong by sound hermeneutics guided by the Spirit, and simple logic that says two contrary claims cannot both be correct. One must be right and the other wrong, or both are wrong.
So I cannot buy the claim, against all Biblical evidence, that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus. Scripture says otherwise, and Scripture is truth.
A counter-argument I've heard (though I'm not sure what to think of it myself), is that Joseph was much older than Mary and was a widower, and Jesus' brothers and sisters were HALF siblings through Joseph from his previous marriage. I haven't seen or read anything that would support that position, though, other than working backwards from the 'conclusion' that Mary MUST have been a life-long virgin, therefor we need to construct some way to make that possible without contradicting scripture.
The scripture doesn’t say anything about Joseph being a widower and that He had children from a previous marriage. If people are claiming this is true, ask them to point it out in the Bible. Simple.
The bible said Joseph didn't know Mary (sexually) until after Christ Jesus' birth, so while she was a virgin before, she most likely didn't stay a virgin after. See Matthew 1:18-25.
" Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was *espoused* to Joseph, *before they came together*, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 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. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: *and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son*: and he called his name JESUS. "
Matthew 1:18-25 KJV
They'd need more than one donkey to go to Bethlehem on, if there were at least 6 other children with pregnant Mary & Joseph (4 half brothers + sisters plural).
@@Payne2view This is a good point, but honestly the only people I've ever seen say Joseph was significantly older than Mary are muslims.
They do it to "justify" the paedophilic relationship between Mohammed & Aisha. I've never seen it used for any other reason.
Scriptures or it didn't happen
Well said!
Further Proof that Roman Catholicism doesn't take Scripture seriously.
FOREVER GRATEFUL TO THE LORD FOR RESCUING ME FROM THE CATHOLIC FALSE DOCTRINE.
The term firstborn in Luke 2:7 (“And she gave birth to her firstborn son”) has significant theological and cultural meaning in both Jewish and Christian contexts, but it does not necessarily imply that Mary had other children.
1. Why the Gospel of Luke uses the term firstborn
In Jewish tradition, the term firstborn (Greek: prototokos) is a title of status and honor. The firstborn son had special rights and responsibilities, such as:
Inheritance rights (Deuteronomy 21:17).
Religious significance: The firstborn male belonged to the Lord and had to be redeemed according to Jewish law (Exodus 13:2, Numbers 18:15-16).
The use of firstborn in Luke emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Jewish law and his consecration to God. It highlights his unique role as Mary’s son, without implying subsequent children.
2. Catholic understanding of Mary as “ever-virgin”
Catholic theology holds that Mary was a perpetual virgin (semper virgo), meaning she had no other children besides Jesus. This belief is rooted in:
Sacred Tradition: The early Church Fathers, such as St. Jerome and St. Athanasius, affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Biblical interpretation: The use of firstborn in Luke does not necessarily mean there were other children; it is a legal and cultural designation. Additionally, other terms like “brothers and sisters of Jesus” (e.g., Matthew 13:55-56) are understood as referring to close relatives, such as cousins or kin, in accordance with broader Semitic language usage.
3. Justification based on theology
Catholics justify the use of firstborn and Mary’s perpetual virginity through a combination of Scripture, Tradition, and reason:
Scripture is silent on Mary having other children: Nowhere in the Bible is Mary explicitly said to have other children. The focus remains on Jesus as her only son.
Typology and Mary’s unique role: Mary is often seen as the Ark of the New Covenant, consecrated entirely to God, just as the Ark in the Old Testament was set apart (Exodus 25:10-22). Her virginal motherhood signifies her total dedication to God’s plan.
Early Christian belief: By the second century, Christians were already honoring Mary as Aeiparthenos (Ever-Virgin), reflecting a consistent tradition that she bore only Jesus.
Luke’s use of firstborn reflects Jesus’ legal and religious status, not a claim about siblings. Catholics interpret this term in light of their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is supported by early Church tradition, scriptural typology, and the absence of any definitive mention of other children in Scripture.
Read the Bible - Mary had at least 6 other children after she gave birth to Yeshua; and the Greek word used to describe the brothers of Yeshua is adelphos, which in the context of Yeshua’s brothers means brothers. If the brothers of Yeshua were His cousins, the Gospel writer would have used the Greek word for cousin - which is anepsios. But the Gospel writers didn’t use anepsios to describe the brothers of Yeshua, they used adelphos, Shy? Because Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin!
She is a virgin when she is not. She is sinless when she is not and Peter was the foundation if the church when he was not. Yeah just being consistent!
WELL SAID!
Mary remained virgin until she had Jesus. She was married to Joseph and had subsequent children. Listed in scripture. Why do you have a problem with this?
Because the scripture doesn't say that. St John Chrysostom points out several other points in the Bible where this sort of language is used but that conclusion does not follow. The translation of Jesus's siblings is also open ended enough not to exclude cousins and step siblings from Joseph in a previous marriage. Lastly, if she had other children why did Jesus charge John to look after her when he was on the cross? This would have been unneeded if she had other sons or daughters to take her in.
This highlights the problem of Sola Scriptura. The passages here leave the question open ended. Even some Protestants will side with Catholics on this. The only option is to appeal to the authority of the Church and what has been passed down in sacred Tradition from the successors of the Apostles.
At least two of the children listed in scripture are stated (in scripture) as the children of another woman named Mary and Clopas/Cleopas (Matthew 27:56, John 19:24, Luke 24:10, Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1)
Then Joseph, arising from sleep, did just as the Angel of the Lord had instructed him, and he accepted her as his wife.
25 And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.
I believe in Jesus.
"until" is used for emphasis in Matthew 1:24, not a change of condition. If "until" always means a change of condition, then that must mean that once all of Jesus's enemies are under his feet, he will cease to be king (1 Cor 5:25) or that Saul's daughter Michal became pregnant after she was dead (2 Samuel 6:23).
The bible tells us that Jesus's brothers James and Joses (aka Joseph) were in fact the biological sons of Clopas (aka Cleopas) and the Other Mary. It is not a far stretch to say the other "siblings" were friends or close relatives but not biological siblings. At the crucifixion, Jesus entrusted Mary to John. If Mary had other children, she would've been entrusted to them.
Also, the same word to describe the relation between Jesus and his disciples (adelphoi) was used to describe the relation between Abraham and Lot. If the it means biological sibling, then that means Abraham was both Lot's uncle and brother. Eww.
I think you need to include how the Catholic and Orthodox explain their reasoning for interpreting the verses that call James & Jude JESUS' brothers as not referring to actual brothers and why we can have confidence their interpretation is wrong.
Im catholic. Idk man. Its probably dangerous to not venerate and respect virgin mary. We can pray to Virgin mary. But shes literally THE MOTHER OF GOD! so shes a virgin but for the birth of jesus. Not her other children. Protesrants largely disrespectful to Mother of GOD. And my Catholic Priest Father mark told me ITS MY FAULT i let protestants influence me! It is! So stop spreading misinformation!!!
Best secular critique of this bad doctrine of sexuality can be found in the book The Name of the Rose by Herman Hesse.
What did Karol Woytyla said on the theology of the body about Mary?
Mark 6:3 is similar to Matthew 13:55-56.
She [Mary] had to be born-again by her Son [God in flesh] Jesus Christ as her Lord & Saviour [God The Son] to have eternal life since she was a born sinner in this world like everyone of us. [Born in Adam to born-again in Christ]. St. John 1:13, St. John 6:44, Ephesians 1:4-6. We can’t understand how the sinless God The Son was conceived in a sinful women’s womb without SIN. [St. John 8:46]. It’s a glorious Miracle & Mystery God only know. What a great and glorious Mystery which we can never understand with our finite minds in this world ! Deuteronomy 29:29. [In the next world, we may know since 1 John 3:2 states, in Lord Jesus Christ’s second coming we will be like HIM].
Through the Holy Spirit. God knew what He was doing when He chose Mary. It makes sense why Jesus was sinless cause of Him being born through the Holy Spirit. The rest of us are born through man.
@@Coronaboii88 that’s true my dear friend. But, can you explain with your finite mind, that how Christ was born sinless when HIS fleshly mother was sinful [in Adam] who was born of a man ? That’s the question !
@@dandjconsultants8965 My answer to that question is that Jesus came down to earth as fully God and became flesh. God can not sin.
@@Coronaboii88 That’s true. Lord Jesus Christ was truly God and truly Man. Two natures in One Person. That’s also a Mystery. But, I think you haven’t understood the question & this is not the answer to the question…
@@dandjconsultants8965 sorry I couldn’t answer your question brother. Pray that God reveals it to you.
This is very good, but Roman Catholics have made up answers to just about all of the passages you brought up about the brothers and sisters of the Lord. I would suggest something more detailed and comprehensive from my playlist called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - 1: Biblical or Unbiblical False Doctrine?"
This series goes indepth into the Greek of the New Testament and part of the Septuagint in dealing with the Catholic "answers" that don't really hold up.
Whenever the subject of Jesus brothers and sisters come up , Catholic would argue that they were His “cousins”. Yet not once have I ever heard a reason why they believe Mary didn’t have any other children. Now I understand why. It’s because Mary is so “Holy” that If she had any kind of sexual relations with Joesph it would be sacrilege.
Well there's also the issue of Jesus telling John to take her in when he was on the cross. That wouldn't make much sense if he had siblings who would look after their own mother. Celibacy is something that some people are called to but not all as St. Paul testifies. Certain protestant groups were so mad at the Catholic Church that they developed this idea that taking a vow of virginity was somehow anti-Christian.
@@ElessarofGondor the reason his brothers and sisters weren’t at the cross is because they didn’t believe in him. I’ve also yet to hear from a catholic why Mary didn’t have any other children. I already know the reason. I just wanted to hear their side.
@@dionoram Where does it say his siblings didn't believe in him? And how would that prevent them from caring from their own mother after the fact?
As far as why Mary didn't have any other children, a lot goes to her being set aside for a special role by God. She was to be the mother of us all spiritually and a symbol of the Church. Her perpetual virginity also means that the virgin birth wasn't just a neat trick etc, but that Mary had a major role in salvation history. Tradition within the Church also supports this. Major figures like St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom all point to this being the case.
@@ElessarofGondor Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection. (John 7:5)Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion. The only reason you believe Mary was a virgin her whole life is because if she had any sexual relations with Joseph it would sacrilege.
Hmmm how do we know Mary wasn’t a virgin after Jesus? How about the books of James and Jude in the Bible? Were they written by no one or Jesus’ little brothers (2 of the 4)? See Mark 6:3.
Then why didn’t his brothers and sisters take care of Mary after Jesus died
They could have been killed we dont know. Not much is said about them
I dont believe that Mary stayed a virgin. I will call her blessed. Blessed to be chosen as the vessel that God chose to come to us to dwell with us. 🎉😊
I don’t believe in the perpetual virginity, but there is an argument that brother and cousin is the same word. Is there any response to that?
Actually yes. The people at the time were speaking a language known as Aramaic. This is essentially slang Hebrew.
In the Hebrew language, the word for brother, cousin, and neighbor is the same. This is also where the tradtion of calling someone else in the faith, Brother X, comes from. I think.
I verified this myself, and disproved this. It's a common teaching of Roman Catholics that Jesus had cousins.
Ancient Greek did have a specific word for cousins, distinct from brother or sister. The Catholic teaching is false.
@@jeremysepicrun Who said they were speaking in Greek? Amongst his kinfolk, the language was Hebrew (technically Aramaic).
@TickedOffPriest The New Testament was translated from Greek.
Where ever the Gospels list Jesus as having brothers and sisters, a Catholic is taught that there wasn't a word in the original Greek for cousins.
This is just false.
@@QuietlyContemplating Do you have any idea how many times subtext changes between language?
If I took every word in the KJV and translated it into Swahili, so much context would be lost. The subtext of these men and women are lost when being translated into Greek.
I would like to point out that most people just assume that those named were younger. It was not that uncommon for a man that already had children to marry another woman.
1 Corinthians 15:20-26
Look at verse 25, does this mean that after Jesus has put all enemies under His Feet, He will not reign? Nonsense!
1 Timothy 4:13-16
Look at verse 13, does this mean that if Timothy ever saw Paul again, Timothy would never again preach? Nonsense!
2 Samuel 6:20-23
Look at verse 23, does this mean that she had children after she died? Nonsense!
I like that you mentioned Wesley who taught Mary's perpetual virginity. You missed Martin Luther (Lutheran Church), Huldrych Zwingli (Baptist Church), Thomas Cramer (Anglican Church), and John Calvin (Calvinist and Presbyterian Churches).
Not scripture, writings of mere men. Where in the whole of the inspired Word is it substantiated that Mary had no other children? Right, not in scripture. Do not add to or take away from the Word.
@@carolhub8080 Technically it does not say that they were Mary's children, only the siblings of Jesus.
@@carolhub8080 I believe this actually shows why Sola Scriptura is unsustainable. Here we have passages that leave several possibilities. Arguing from scripture alone here will not suffice as evidenced by the fact that this is an issue that divides Protestants as well. You need the authority of Christ given to his Apostles and their successors.
@@ElessarofGondor Also, scripture never defines itself or tells the reader to adhere to sola scriptura, rendering it an unscriptural doctrine. The only way to come to sola scriptura is to look to an infallible authority outside of scripture.
@@WC3isBetterThanReforged Exactly. Sola Scriptura can't account for the early Church before the canon was fixed.
The Roman Catholic Church having bad theology is no shocker
I'm curious as to why you think RC theology is so bad? Have you ever read any of the early fathers or looked at early Church history? It would be a far safer bet to side with Catholics and Orthodox on many things.
@@ElessarofGondor Reading the early fathers and studying church history brought me to precisely the opposite conclusion - so much which was never in the apostolic ministry, and not even in the early fathers, has been accumulated by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox 'churches'.
@@thebowshot9341 So what do you make of Ignatius's mention of the Eucharist and Bishops? Or even more with what Irenaeus has to say on it? Or Clement seeing fit to express authority over a church half a world away? No one is saying everything the Catholics teach is found explicitly in the Fathers, but the seeds are there. And more importantly, many things that evangelical protestants reject are found.
Take for example the Eucharist. It is abundantly clear that the early Church believed that Jesus was in someway present in the Eucharist. We find no historical evidence of the Church calling it purely symbolic until the late middle ages. Even earlier protestant groups like Lutherans and Calvinists believed that Christ was present in some way (lutherans believe in consubstantiation and calvinists tend to believe in spiritual presence) , but the purely symbolic view that we see among evangelical groups today is nowhere present.
@@ElessarofGondor I believe Ignatius's words as to the Eucharist are open to interpretation, and as to bishops that they laid the foundation for a great deal of later corruption (although he couldn't have foreseen that). There are seeds there, for sure, but they're the seeds of decay -of decline from the inspired word of God, and dependence upon what's uninspired to introduce all kinds of evil.
I disagree as to the doctrine of the Real Presence being abundantly clear in the early fathers - it is anything but clear, and the language used by be interpreted in various different ways. Where this is the case, we must get ourselves back on to the solid ground of scripture, and see clearly that the Lord's Supper is held in remembrance of Him.
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." - John Calvin. Reformed theology makes God out to be worse than the devil.
No. Jesus did not have siblings.
Read Mark 15:40 and John 19:25.
Putting aside the immucalate conception, jesus was born sinless, thought he still was baptised. If his mother had inheritance original sin, Jeaus' human nature should have inheritance it from the human bloodline. Perhaps St Mary was immalucate and free from original sin
brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Martin Luther: "Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writings and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
Another quote from Luther "Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble (that Joseph knew Mary afterwards). . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
Petrus Van Mastricht - "But whether or not she remained a virgin after the Savior’s birth was completed cannot be determined with certainty from Scripture, because on one hand it seems less probable that the vessel once impregnated by the Holy Spirit was afterwards known carnally by a man (cf. Ezek. 44:1-2), and on the other hand the Scriptures do not lack statements that seem at first glance to suggest that it was consummated (Matt. 1:18, 25; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3)."
Luther is not an author of scripture. I take a high view of scripture over anything Luther wrote. He was wrong on more than this.
@@carolhub8080 No one said Luther said is the author of Scripture. Nor that he was right in all things.
The point was that almost all of the reformation branches, held not a strict but a nuanced view of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was only until late sects that went to the other extreme that is taught in this video.
Also, to say this opinion means a high while that of Luther, Mastricht and other reformers means a low view of scripture is absurd
@@carolhub8080 If Matthew 1:25 is the basis for disproving Mary's perpetual virginity, then you would have to also believe that Michal became impregnated after she died (2 Sam 6:23).
@@WC3isBetterThanReforged Luther is a man only. Scripture says Mary had other sons, so I don’t care what Luther said. Mary was born of a man and a woman and thus sin was imputed to her and she was not a perpetual virgin either. She does nothing to intercede,only Jesus does that.
@@carolhub8080 i didn't say anything about luther. Question though. Did Michal get pregnant after she died? And scripture never says mary had other sons. It says Jesus had brothers, an ambiguous term as it's used in the Bible.
Please read Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 and you’ll
Immediately see Mary is a perpetual virgin.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The Bible makes it clear she didnt stay a virgin. He knew her not UNTIL she had Jesus. Knew in this context is reffering to intercourse it is an old English way to say it. Catholics are stupud
Was Mary already married to Joseph when she was visited by the Holy Spirit? I thought Joseph decided to marry her AFTER the Angel came to him.
After the angel told him the truth, he decided to not divorce her quietly.
@@SabbatarianCalvinist - If they were already married, would she have not been a virgin? Do you have a Biblical reference to say they were already married?
There are three passages of Scripture that pertain specifically to the time of Joseph and Mary’s betrothal, the consummation of their marriage, and the birth of Jesus: Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-56; Luke 2:1-7. Each passage reveals something about their relationship as well as the cultural mores of that time.
In Bible times, Jewish marriage customs regarding a couple’s engagement were far different and much more stringent than those we are familiar with today, especially in the West. Marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom and often without even consulting the couple to be married. A contract was prepared in which the groom’s parents paid a bride price. Such a contract was immediately deemed binding, with the couple considered married even though the actual ceremony and consummation of the marriage would not occur for as long as a year afterwards. The time between was a sort of testing of fidelity with the couple having little, if any, contact with each other.
It was during this betrothal period that the angel Gabriel visited Mary and told her of her impending pregnancy. It’s no small wonder that Mary was so inquisitive of the angel; she was still a virgin and would know no man sexually for several months, maybe as long as a year or more (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:34).
Joseph soon became aware of Mary’s pregnancy, and this no doubt was cause for consternation on his part: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19). Jewish custom allowed that they be considered as husband and wife, though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The point is being made that Joseph and Mary had experienced no sexual contact with each other, as verse 18 “before they came together” points out. So, Joseph was in a quandary. Jewish law provided that his betrothed, because of her unfaithfulness, could be placed before the elders for judgment and stoned to death. But he was thinking to just put her away quietly without public knowledge. Betrothals or marriage engagements in those ancient times were binding and could only be terminated by an official divorce decree.
It was then that the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 1:20-25) and explained to him that all this was bringing about the fulfillment of prophecy that a virgin would bear a child who was to be the Savior (Isaiah 7:14), and “he [Joseph] did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
Luke 2:1-7 also confirms the idea that Joseph and Mary, though betrothed, were considered as husband and wife by Jewish customs even though the actual marriage ceremony had not been fully effectuated. So, Joseph and Mary were actually legally married before the birth of Jesus though their marriage was not consummated physically until after His birth.
As I understand Jewish marriage tradition at the time they were betrothed, which was similar to being married in that there were vows that had been taken and so on, but a marriage ceremony had not yet taken place, after which it would be proper for the two to concentrate the marriage by their coming together. In that way it is similar to how the church is the bride of Christ now, and yet we look forward to the marriage feast that is yet to come when we will know Jesus more intimately. The point is that yes they were married... kind of, but they were also in the period where it would be acceptable to divorce on grounds of infidelity since the two did not yet 'know' eachother.
@@HartyBiker - Now THAT makes sense. Thanks.
Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7. These are even j. The Catholic Bible.
First
shall be last
@@robmc120 shall be first
@@J21665 for many are called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20:16)
@@robmc120 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39)
Couldn't His siblings be from Joseph's previous marriage (he could have been a widower)?
That is the Roman Catholic explanation, yes, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that Joseph was a widow, significantly older than Mary, or had any other children. It is all extra-biblical and apocryphal.
@@AdirondackRuby - But is there anything in the Bible that says otherwise? Understood, they're speculating, but the lack of details does tend to open itself to speculation.
That has been the tradition of the Orthodox Church for centuries as well as a few other denominations.
@@TodaysDante This is just a random thought, and not one I've studied in depth, but Jesus was the heir to the throne of David, yes? Legally, through Joseph's line, that would go to his firstborn. If Jesus were younger than his brothers, they would have valid claims over Jesus to the title of "King of the Jews."
@@DuolosX - I'm not sure if that logic works for kingdoms not of this world. Jesus is the eldest Son of His Father - God.
According to every Protestant Reformer, including the ones from whom you're deriving your theology - no, Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus, with the possible exception of children from an earlier marriage of Joseph's.
He's a Baptist he doesn't derive anything from the classical reformers
Mary's other so-called children were actually the children of another Mary. Read the last chapters of the Gospels and you will find it. It is a pity that Protestants cannot outgrow their ignorance.
Shut up
This speaker is quite ignorant of Holy Scripture! According to him, Jesus is the biological child of Joseph, "is this not The SON of Joseph ". The word BROTHER does not always denote of the same womb! Plus, the word until does not always denote a change takes place after! The speaker is simply providing his own fallible interpretations! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
No, Jesus was the only Son of Mary
This video explicitly pointed out Scripture that proves you wrong.
@@reidmason2551 No, it didn't. It recycled the same old arguments
new arguments are not needed when the original ones answer the question
@@kaitiscarlett9022 Except for every argument that he presents, there's already been hundreds if not thousands of explanations for such "arguments."
Luther, Calvin, Wesley most of christiandom...nah our novel doctrine knows better
It isn’t novel. That Matthew passage is strong. Besides that, there’s no hint of the doctrine of perpetual virginity until at Jerome wrote about it. That’s 350 years where the doctrine is never mentioned.
@@tcideh4929it is novel because everyone but baptists gave historically held this view
@@daylightsober6138well there's other extra biblical sources that held that view. The Muslims rejected that view because they view the purpose of a wife is to have sex with the husband
The Matthew text uses the same word as later when Christ says I will be with your unto the end of the world and had been accepted to mean now and forever
Unless you're saying all of christiandom was wrong for so many years till the Baptists came along
Everyone you mentioned definitely knew better than Frankie currently does… and you know this is a fact. :)
Well I'm Lutheran so yeah