Why the Church Teaches That Mary is a Virgin w/ Tim Staples

Рет қаралды 33,596

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 900

@m.e4752 4 жыл бұрын

Definitely Mother Mary was virgin. But whether or not she remained forever a virgin, im not bothered to know the answer, doesnt affect my faith in Jesus.

@michaelc1732 4 жыл бұрын

David Young the word for brother in hebrew means cousin or family member. If james was the son of Blessed Mary as well, and we know him to be alive after Jesus’s crucifixion, why did he Jesus give Mary to John to stay with her?

@michaelc1732 4 жыл бұрын

David Young Also it never said that Joseph did not know her until after she had Jesus, but that She didn’t know Joseph before the time she had Jesus. All it says is they didn’t have sex before Jesus, never says that after that they had sex

@psalm5188 4 жыл бұрын

Michael C excellent!

@PhilipDNorris 4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelc1732 The new testament text was written in Greek, not Hebrew. And in Greek there was a DIFFERENT word that was used for "cousin or family member", it is used in describing Elizabeth in Luke 1. As Mary's "firstborn" (see Matthew 1:25), Jesus had the right to pass the responsibility of caring for His mother over to whomever He saw fit, and for whatever reason He saw the apostle John the beloved more fit.

@PhilipDNorris 4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelc1732 Yes it does say that in Matthew 1:25 "but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation)." AMP

@MikePasqqsaPekiM 8 ай бұрын

Love it. Beautiful. Friends, if the early church believed that she was a perpetual virgin, that has to be the standard, and dissidents have the burden of proof.

@xxJ0xx 2 ай бұрын

ALL have sinned and fall short of gods glory Roman 3:23 except Christ. all means Mary so u guess Paul’s wrong according to your popes

@jbar3337 Ай бұрын

@@MikePasqqsaPekiMJesus had at least 6 siblings Matthew 13:55-56 Is this not the Carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brotherern James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas and his sisters are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 12:46-47 Mark 3:6 It's almost the same as the above scripture. James jesus's brother wrote the book of James. John 7:3-5 Enough of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Four brothers and sisters is plural so Jesus had at least six siblings. Discussion debunked.

@MikePasqqsaPekiM Ай бұрын

@@jbar3337 on the contrary, this has been debunked from the beginning! If you really want to know, there are lots of ancient and modern sources that go through who each of these people are, and what scripture fully tells us about all of them (spoiler: ‘brothers’ is a loose term back then), how Jesus could not give his mother to one of his disciples unless he didn’t have any living siblings… There’s so much evidence. The real question is why does this long held belief bother you so much?

@trumenfreight6055 Ай бұрын

Moses said that in order for a matter to be established there must be 2 witnesses. The early "church fathers" are not witnesses they long after Mary died. The only two possible witnesses are Mary and YHWH. Where is this found in history. There must be documents going back to Mary and/or others in the bible as YHWH only inspired scripture. Where is the eye witness testimony?

@MikePasqqsaPekiM Ай бұрын

@@trumenfreight6055 Moses was alone at the burning bush, so where are the corroborating witness(es) to that? You’re invoking juridical law, which doesn’t apply to divine revelation. Regardless, the church founded by Christ and His Apostles everywhere taught this, and scripture explicitly calls her a virgin, and John’s Gospel proves Jesus had no siblings to entrust Mary to at the cross…and so much more…the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of perpetual virginity.

@emiboy900 8 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot for this. I’ve never heard the virginity of Mary explained so well with biblical references before.

@trumenfreight6055 Ай бұрын

Where does the bible say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit? The bible actually says that the she was the spouse of Joseph. All this is BS

@Spiritof76Catholic Жыл бұрын

Jesus said in Matt 5:17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Jesus is the Word and we must abide by every Word of God even though our human minds can’t understand that Mary is a perpetual virgin. It’s not about us. God bless you Tim Staples, what a beautiful explanation of the Holy Spirit leading Christs Church to all truth even about the ever Virgin Mary. Amen. I believe!

@aryanahyperborea8731 4 жыл бұрын

Very very interesting my brain exploded😂

@sotem3608 3 жыл бұрын

I was about to make the exact same comment!

@sotem3608 3 жыл бұрын

About my brain exploding is what I mean :D

@LoveAcrossAmerica Жыл бұрын

Mine also lol

@trumenfreight6055 Ай бұрын

but he gave ZERO proof that she was an eternal virgin.

@_Randa_ Жыл бұрын

Such a clear explanation! Really helped answer my question. Thank you

@jbar3337 Ай бұрын

Jesus had at least 6 siblings Matthew 13:55-56 Is this not the Carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brotherern James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas and his sisters are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 12:46-47 Mark 3:6 It's almost the same as the above scripture. James jesus's brother wrote the book of James. John 7:3-5 Enough of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Four brothers and sisters is plural so Jesus had at least six siblings. Discussion debunked.

@angelasimpson5581 4 жыл бұрын

Understanding the Jewish law behind why Joseph and Mary could do the marital act blew my mind. So therefore, Mary completely belonged to God in a bigger way than just her vow stated. And she needed the protection therefore Jose needed to take her in. Mind blown

@ORaddlyispissedoff 4 жыл бұрын

This sounds like hoccus poccus honestly

@isaacosahon4352 4 жыл бұрын

@@ORaddlyispissedoff What part? The Jewish law?

@Loreman72 4 жыл бұрын

@@ORaddlyispissedoff Please avoid blasphemous parodies of the Mass.

@SeekTheCross Жыл бұрын

Protection from what? Joseph was a carpenter.

@angelasimpson5581 Жыл бұрын

@@SeekTheCross I really don’t remember. It’s been two years since I watched this video

@zkima123 5 ай бұрын

This vídeo was so helpful. May God bless you 🙏🕊️💕

@justinhawes1593 Жыл бұрын

The absolute mental and biblical gymnastics required to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary astonishes me. Why would anyone accept such a radical doctrine with no scriptural support? Edit: Forgot to mention, the Holy Spirit is not the spouse of Mary. Joseph was. Were they a throuple? You can’t just make stuff up to justify insane theology.

@miracles_metanoia 8 ай бұрын

The holy spirit espoused / overshadowed Mary, and the Word was made flesh

@justinhawes1593 8 ай бұрын

@@miracles_metanoia How does that relate to the perpetual virginity of Mary?

@matthewashman1406 14 күн бұрын

It should be its own Olympic sport

@JonathanGrandt Жыл бұрын

So instead of verse 25 saying, “he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn” or should read, “and Joseph never knew her because she was married to God.”

@aaronsmith5904 7 ай бұрын

I don’t think it should be read that way, I think St Luke or St Matthew was focused on fulfilling the prophecy, so he was just focused on the period until Jesus was born since it says a Virgin shall conceive AND bear a son. So the virgin has to give birth and still be a virgin. But as Tim Staples was saying, there are a couple of places that point to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

@TheMagodana 4 ай бұрын

This is the most bizzar Catholic argument - Marry was a virgin , and had children after that. What Catholics are doing is wrapping themselves in lies to cover up their idolatry of Marry.

@chriswalls5831 2 ай бұрын

@@aaronsmith5904agree not married to God but was a virgin who had Jesus but only from God she also had other kids with Joseph

@aaronsmith5904 Ай бұрын

@@chriswalls5831 Are you saying she gave birth to other kids after Jesus with Joseph or that she merely took care of kids with St. Joseph?

@TriciaPerry-mz7tc Ай бұрын

@@chriswalls5831it’s Read as it should be and people touching and changing what is WRITTEN WILL BE CURSED KEEP on with WHAT YALL THINK it should read. Disrespectful and IGNORANT

@larryluch8178 4 жыл бұрын

I am the lmmaculate Conception. These are the words of Mary to Bernadette at Lourdes. Many astounding miracles are worked at Lourdes.

@TyroneBeiron 4 жыл бұрын

In the dialect of the Pyreenes it has past continuing sense, so peculiar to the syntax that Bernadette found the phrase itself 'unusual'. Anyway, although it affirmed the proclaimed dogma, the apparition was 'private revelation'.

@catiesteas Ай бұрын

I have to say, the final point he made is the most compelling argument I’ve heard yet! That makes sense!!

@jbar3337 Ай бұрын

@Hedgehog-ji1bm Жыл бұрын

I invite our Catholic friends to read the Holy Bible - Matthew 1:24-25

@thecontagiouscajun4795 10 ай бұрын

The gymnastics they have to perform to get past that verse, will mirror the gymnastics this man performed here. Honestly, sickens me. The Bible also says only a few should teach, and these two men should not teach, clearly.

@usamiichika1548 9 ай бұрын

I am not Catholic, but a Christian currently studying Catholicism and other denominations. When looking at the verse, I paid close mind to the word until. Matthew 1:25 - "but [St. Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son." The Greek for "until" is έως. έως means "up to a point", not "beyond a point". From what I can gather, there is no specifics set if Joseph actually consummated the marriage with Mary or not. Thus, with the other supporting evidence they gave, it makes more sense on their stances. I'm not a scholar of theology by any means, but looking at the origins of wording does help explain better of what they are saying. And please, I have many loved ones and acquantices who are Catholic. The masses they go to and all they speak are from the Holy Bible, for the Bible was put together by God's own creations and arguably the Catholic church's entities as well. Don't "invite" Catholic friends to read the Bible, discuss the Bible together instead.

@rouxmain934 6 ай бұрын

@@thecontagiouscajun4795 I invite our anti-catholic friends to actually hear us out and be charitable & patient with us. It might be the first time for some, but you only slander us if you don't listen.

@Nolongeraslave 5 ай бұрын

@@rouxmain934Hear out is what some of us do and we are disappointed, because when we to are disagree, we are not allowed to disagree since that has to mean we are anti Catholic! See how that operates?

@Spiritof76Catholic 4 ай бұрын

⁠@@usamiichika1548 2 Peter 1:20, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then try listening to the video instead of bringing your own errors into the discussion. Next in context study how Jesus organized the church in the Bible. Mat16:18-19, Mat18:18. Don’t add or subtract words or interpret scripture yourself and in particular the way protestants do because Jesus never gave them the authority to interpret it. Jesus gave the authority to the Church of the living God the pillar and bull work of truth 1Tim3:15.

@gregswartz8098 4 жыл бұрын

Wow! What a great explanation. There should be no doubt after that unpacking. Great job guys.

@BenjaminAMcKay Жыл бұрын

This was very good. This video finally answered the MAJOR question surrounding Mary and Joseph that I hear from all shades of Christianity. Now we just got to figure out what happened to Joseph in the later years.

@darlameeks 4 жыл бұрын

Matthew 1:24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took (Mary) as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her UNTIL she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (I love my Catholic brothers and sisters, but nothing you can say changes this. Sexual relations within the bonds of marriage is expected, holy and completely sanctified.)

@_MysticKnight 4 жыл бұрын

Your understanding is in error because the Greek word that is translated as "until" in English does not imply that marital relations happened afterwards. You have to understand that nuances in language are lost in translation.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

@@_MysticKnightCorrect. The verse only addresses what occured up until the time Jesus was born-it says nothing about what happened afterward. Some Protestants impose an implication on the verse that isn’t there. The Catholic Answers tract “Brethren of the Lord” points out: In the Bible, it [until] means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result such as the examples below. Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either. The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea-nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

@PhilipDNorris 4 жыл бұрын

@@_MysticKnight I studied koine Greek in a seminary and a university, and there are no nuances that are lost in the translation of Matthew 1:25. You need to site credible scholarly sources, if you have any.

@Catholic1391 4 жыл бұрын

Please read all. www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord

@Catholic1391 4 жыл бұрын

@Arm www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord

@pupwizard3888 6 ай бұрын

Ugh, his argument just went nowhere. He basically argues that Mary has to be a perpetual virgin because she is "married" to the Holy Spirit and Joseph is simply there for appearances sake, that he had no right to a husband's privilege of having sexual relations with his own wife. The protestant view is much more logical. It affirms the immaculate conception but then acknowledges that Mary and Joseph became a normal married couple after Jesus' birth. This thing about elevating Mary to such absurd heights makes me scratch my head every time

@iggyantioch 5 ай бұрын

Protestants affirm the immaculate conception? Some maybe which ones.

@iggyantioch 5 ай бұрын

Calvin and Wesley and Luther disagree with you they affirm her perpetual virginity.

@pupwizard3888 5 ай бұрын

@@iggyantioch Still not an argument. The gospels indicate that Jesus had siblings. It is absurd and unnecessary to argue that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I am starting to think that Mary was elevated by the early church to appeal to converted Pagans. It creates a sort of continuity with goddess worship. Honor Mary YES, but remember who the hero of the story is......

@iggyantioch 5 ай бұрын

Why not an argument? Do the Reformers have no merit? The argument that scripture says she had other children,why don't the Reformers agree? Seeing as they were Sola Scriptura believers and very anti Catholic. I would direct you to this by John Calvin He agreed with St. Jerome vs Helvidius on this. He appeals to Ezekiel 44. She's the East Gate. Remember She's the Mother of God. This arguing style of many that disagree harms The hypostatic union. This is why the Marian Dogmas were ascribed in many instances. It wasn't pagan reasons that the Dogmas were made it was due to heresy. Arianism, Nestorianism gnostics and all sorts of people degrading The Saviors person. Thanks for the response Peace.

@iggyantioch 5 ай бұрын

You can read the response to the charge of Helvidius that she wasn't a perpetual virgin. At New advent Catholic Encyclopedia It's not too long.

@jvlp2046 4 ай бұрын

I agreed this time with James White on this matter of Blessed Mary's R.C.C. Dogmas that ANATHEMATIZE (Curse/Condemn) those who do not believe in it (reject it)... I concur with that... The "Perpetual Virginity" Dogma of Blessed Mary by the R.C.C. was a total denial of the ACTUAL NORMAL BIRTH of the Infant Christ Jesus in Bethlehem... "Blessed is the WOMB that bore THEE (Savior/Messiah)."... (ref. Luke 11:27-28)... The Bible never said, "Blessed is the WOMB that MIRACULOUSLY bore THEE (Savior)." Praise be to God in Christ Jesus...Amen.

@davidr1620 4 жыл бұрын

I’m sorry but this argument relies on so many premises, all of which have very questionable plausibility. I find it so implausible, just for one example, that countless Protestant Greek scholars just happen to miss that the Greek actually tells us that Jospeh merely “walked beside her” and that’s supposed to mean they didn’t have marital relations. The argument is just so disjointed and can only persuade the one who already believes in perpetual virginity. So much reading into the text here. “She’s married to the Holy Spirit.” Says who?! He’s just asserting this.

@ericworiax1277 2 жыл бұрын

Copy, still trying to address His half brothers and sisters, according to these guys.

@sandstorm7768 2 жыл бұрын

That doesn't sound like a fault of the arguement. That sounds like scholars failing to learn their etymology. That kind of error manifests in many Christians today given translation after translation. We always need to go back and learn what the original writing in the original language says. It's VERY important to understand what the heck its even talking about. We lose SO MUCH context when we fail to translate the Scriptures as accurately as possible. Also, it only makes sense that Mary is "married" to the Holy Spirit as it is what concieved Jesus in her womb, not Joseph. It's simply metaphorical. It makes me think of the language nuns use about taking their vows; they are "married" to Jesus, fully devoted to him and to no man on earth. This is also just like how Jesus is devoted to us as "our bridegroom," and we, the church, are his "bride." We must wait patiently for him and be devoted only to him until the times comes that we can finally (metaphorically) consummate our salvation on the final day.

@davidr1620 2 жыл бұрын

@@sandstorm7768 I think the issue is how far one takes the analogy. If Mary is only metaphorically married to the Holy Spirit, then her having relations with Joseph wouldn’t be immoral or unholy in any way. The only way I could understand it as being unholy is if Mary was really married to the Spirit.

@chommie5350 2 жыл бұрын

Ya ah ...." PROTESTANT Greek scholars " says it all ...bias comes into play ....those protestants that found out became catholic ....I know a few .....so my friend look deeper ....don't just see the surface ....do your own research ....I did and I learnt the Jewish history of marriage first ....and their customs ....because Afterall Jesus was a JEW ....MARY was a JEW and they followed Jewish customs ....you see now ....protestants don't do that because they believe in Sola Scriptura....not everything is in the bible ....you have to read everything in context ...not just surface reading ....which most people do .

@chommie5350 2 жыл бұрын

@@ericworiax1277 There was no brothers and sisters ....you people don't know history ....in those days a close community of people referred to everybody as either brother or sister much like what the Muslims do today .....and some churches still do today ....that my friend doesn't mean biological brothers and sisters ....c'mon guys do your homework.....study history not sola scriptura......big mistake

@jvlp2046 5 ай бұрын

St. Paul warned the Corinthians... "Do not go beyond what is WRITTEN (in the Scripture/Bible)." ...(ref. 1 Corin. 4:6)... St. Paul also warned the Galatians... "If we (Apostles) or an Angel from Heaven teaches/preaches (Gospel/Prophesies) DIFFERENTLY, other than what we have Preached, Taught, and Received from us (Apostles), let the CURSE of God be upon them." (be ANATHEMA, be doomed to destruction, be condemned eternally in Hell. etc.)... (ref. Galatians 1:8)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

@jaimesagaseta1673 2 жыл бұрын

Prophet Isaiah 7, 14 // Gospels: Mathew 1, 18, //Matthew 1, 23, //Matthew 1, 25// Luke 1, 27,//Luke 1, 34

@margheritamelis6333 2 ай бұрын

Finalmente qualcuno che cita i passi come si deve.....

@MinaDKSBMSB Жыл бұрын

Would be nice to hear more about data/sources/logic that support: 1. An elderly Joseph betrothed to a teenage Mary 2. A tradition that holds that Mary took a vow of virginity

@billsburydoughboy Жыл бұрын

A good point would be Jesus’s sister Mary. Naming a child after a living relative was taboo at the time, so if the sister meaning is correct (the word could apply to a number of things) she would have been Joseph’s daughter from a prior marriage. So if not elderly, at least quite a bit older

@rouxmain934 6 ай бұрын

You'd understand if you'd listen : Tim Staples said that Mary was already "betrothed" to Joseph when she said she doesn't know man. Now you can easily search how Jewish customs were at that time thanks to Google. As for the second point, all ancient churches hold that belief (you know, the ones that aren't built upon Luther's apostasy).

@GodNod 4 жыл бұрын

This is so important! Everyone needs to watch this

@rlpsychology 8 ай бұрын

Brothers, Where in the Old or New Testament does it say Mary was uniquely married to the Holy Spirit?

@TyroneBeiron 4 жыл бұрын

There is a thought 💭 toward the strength of 'tradition' that also makes sense: if Joseph was a 'observant Jew', and he knew Mary's pregnancy and birth of Jesus was a miracle, would he have been so bold then to have had conjugal relations with Mary and 'spoilt' the evidence of the miracle. Also, in Numbers 30:3-4 there is the Mosaic basis for the Protoevangelium claiming Mary was a consecrated virgin prior to her betrothal to Joseph.

@StanleyPinchak 2 жыл бұрын

Are you sure about Numbers 31:33. It doesn't seem like a relevant passage. “And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,” (Num 31:33, KJVA)

@TyroneBeiron 2 жыл бұрын

@@StanleyPinchak It's a mistake. It should be Numbers 30:3-4 - thank you for pointing it out! 👍🏼

@dand1260 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting, makes sense, never heard before 👍

@zachdavenport8509 4 жыл бұрын

Wait, for this argument to follow, we have to look at Jesus' conception in some sense as a sexual act with the Holy Spirit do we not? Is that not the implication of the idea that Joseph saw Mary as being married to the Holy Spirit? Needless to say, I take great issue with that line of reasoning. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me. Also, is the catholic position that Joseph had another wife by whom he had Jesus' brothers who are mentioned in the Gospels? And, why did James refer to himself as Jesus' half brother if he was not Mary's son? He would have been Joseph's son, but he would have no real relation to Jesus. I'm legitimately asking here, not just trying to poke holes.

@lauriemcbroom 4 жыл бұрын

@ ZachDavenport I think you are misunderstanding in that we are talking about a spiritual being in the Holy Spirit. A spirit does not have sex! But the Spirit can place what is needed into her womb to bring about the pregnancy without sacrificing her virginity. And here is how Mary gave birth without giving up her virginity. In the words of Bishop Sheen: “Christ was born as the light of the Sun ☀️ comes through a window.”

@zachdavenport8509 4 жыл бұрын

@@lauriemcbroom I understand and believe that, but the fact that it is not a sexual union leads me to believe that it shouldn't be seen as a marital one either. Which is why I don't think we should see Mary as being married to the Holy Spirit as this argument says.

@sjappiyah4071 2 жыл бұрын

Agreed.

@chommie5350 2 жыл бұрын

Zack : silly man ....you must be Muslim to think that way .

@miracles_metanoia 8 ай бұрын

James was the son of Mary of Clopas (scripture). He referred to himself as a brother because many languages including scripture didnt have another word for cousin/nephew/uncle/half brother or adopted brother / or someone from the same tribe. Its all "brother"... which is why they said who their parents were. My childhood language also calls my cousins "brothers and sisters" since we dont have a word for cousin.

@thetim3177 3 жыл бұрын

I love the way that Tim Staples explains everything. I have been a fan of his since he visited the my church 25 years ago and gifted me with a personalized message and autographed copy of his book Nuts and Bolts...

@judesolis481 4 жыл бұрын

St. Joseph was the Redemptoris Custos -- The Guardian of our Redeemer. Thank God for you ministry, Matt. Sia lodato Gesu Cristo!

@danielcristancho3524 Жыл бұрын

The church teaches Mary is a perpetual virgin because of tradition, not because the bible teaches it. Matthew is very clear, Joseph knew Mary after Christ was born. This is a commandment of men.

@psalm5188 4 жыл бұрын

Always good to hear something wonderful about Mamma Mary. 🥰

@psalm5188 4 жыл бұрын

@Dr. Alan Hales I do not care for your opinion.

@psalm5188 4 жыл бұрын

@Dr. Alan Hales I know the Bible. Preach to someone else.

@psalm5188 4 жыл бұрын

@Dr. Alan Hales go away

@danpozzi3307 Жыл бұрын

If Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, that means that the Holy Spirit committed adultery, since Mary was already married to Joseph, correct? Your argument seems to be getting worse rather than better. Plus I know it’s an old video, but do you have links to where you answer the question about sex being evil in catholic theology in marriage? God’s best on request for absolute truth.

@colmwhateveryoulike3240 4 жыл бұрын

Isn't James the brother of Jesus? And other brothers were mentioned (in Greek). Why would Mary and Joseph not have kids naturally afterward? I really don't understand where this argument comes from. If the church is married to Christ then no Christian would have sex. I really think this is reading far too much into the language but happy to be educated.

@colmwhateveryoulike3240 8 ай бұрын

Hi, thank you very much. You're completely right. As you can see, I made this comment 3 years ago and you'll be pleased to know that not long after it I did find the answer. I found the following blog entitled "who were the brethren of the Lord from the website Obitel Minsk a great help when I grappled with this question because it was the most convincing Bible-based argument. I may as well post it here to expand on your comment for anyone else who happens by. Who Were the “Brethren of the Lord”? Posted on November 6, 2017 | by Editor | SourceReading time: 4 minutes Q: Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos “Ever-Virgin”? A: The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude. We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”. There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ’s mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”. Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister”. The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”. The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Thus the Scriptures show that the “brothers” of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God. Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!

@erim9175 7 ай бұрын

The Holy spirit is the father of Jesus?? What is going on here? The Holy spirit is the spirit of the father and the son. We do not understand how jesus was placed in the womb of the virgin Mary..that is a mystery beyond our human ability to understand. It was a miraculous act unexplainable in human form. "The bible puts it as overshadowing of the holyspirit". What is said aboutthe Holy Spirit we need to be extremely careful becausesin againstthe Holyspiritis the only unforgivable sin. As described by Jesus christin the bible. Lets not assign human meanings to the works and power of the Holyspirit. @@miracles_metanoia

@BooDamnHoo 2 ай бұрын

@@erim9175The error, I believe, is people consider that for Mary to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit requires a sex act in some form. This is wrong. With God, she can simply BE pregnant because God wills it, no other act of any kind is necessary.

@danpozzi3307 Жыл бұрын

There is a big problem with saying the king David did not take his wives back because they belong to another. Absalon was dead. Plus, they belong to David in the first place. It was because a son defiled as fathers wives. Not at all a parallel with Mary and Joseph God’s best on our quest for absolute truth.

@Light17784 3 жыл бұрын

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

@CPATuttle 2 жыл бұрын

The word 'until' doesn't mean what we think it means in English. It comes from the Greek word that is used as an infinite amount of time

@SeekTheCross Жыл бұрын

@@CPATuttle it does not change anything. Till remains till. Look how it is used "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son" Look how "knowing" someone is used in Genesis: Genesis 24:15-17 New King James Version 15 And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. 16 Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up. 17 And the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please let me drink a little water from your pitcher.” No man had known her, meaning no man had laid with her; she was a virgin. Now when it says Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born, what do you think it suggests if Joseph married Mary? If Mary would remain virgin forever why would she marry a man knowing the marriage will not be fullfilled like having a fake marriage? In the right context Jospeh discovered his would be wife Mary was pregnant, and because he did not want to shame her he want to privately dismiss her, but the Angel told him to not do that that she was not pregnant because of premarital sex but because this was by the will of God through The Holy Spirit, that she was still virgin and never laid with a man. The Angel then instructs him to still marry her because the birth of Christ is of God, that way Joseph would still marry Mary, imagine in those days according to Jewish customs, a woman being pregmant before getting married, it is a great dishonor, not something that would get a woman killed but she would be put to shame as it is written that Jospeh did not want to shame her, it did not say protect her from being killed. I think people believe in The Gospel of James a book that is not in the Bible and follow the teachings of Tatian who taught sex and marriage are a byproduct of original sin, rather than the original sin being that Adam and Eve disobeying God and listening to the serpent and eating from the tree that God forbid them to eat from, thinking they would become Gods too like God which is the serpents desire (that will never come to pass). It was God who created Eve for Adam, before the original sin. God saw Adam needed a companion, this was after Adam named all the animals when Adam was asleep, and God took one of his ribs and made Eve. How can Tatian hold this belief when God said be fruitful and multiply? We see it in animals in nature and with human beings its reproduction by the blessing of God; trees and plants fruits etc grow seeds, animals get puppies cubs etc and mankind have babies. And seeing how birth works, how can one remain virgin after giving birth to a child? Some woman die when a child is born for example, some need a c section, but either way a child came out of the lady part down there and it takes away the hymen etc. And a married couple can consumate their marriage, that is not sin but lawful. Marriage is considered holy, if you get married in a Church; does it not include a ritual that you take eachother as husband and wife before God? And that you are expected to hold the marital duties? And that when the marriage is fruitful you have many children which is a blessing rather than something to look down upon? If Mary remained virgin forever or not, she is the blessed among women, she was chosen by God to bear His Son. What a great honor.

@ninjason57 10 ай бұрын

@@CPATuttle This is not true. ἕως • (héōs) means "for a time". Not "for all time"

@CPATuttle 10 ай бұрын

@@ninjason57 yes it is. Matthew 28:20 uses “heos” translated “until” to mean continuous as God will continue to be with us after the end of time

@CPATuttle 10 ай бұрын

Same book of Matthew 28:20 uses “heos” translated “until” to mean continuous as God will continue to be with us after the end of time

@gomezjkv 2 жыл бұрын

(5:43) I see a problem here with this interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4 and that the law does not say that a betrothed person needs to divorce his wife. Deut. 24:1 is not speaking to a couple who is betrothed but a couple who has married and consummated the relationship. Joseph and Mary had not yet gotten to that point in their relationship. The law in Deut. refers to a legal dissolution of the marriage with a certificate of divorce. Which is why I believe that Matthew writes that Joseph put her away secretly. No written certificate of divorce required. This just does not apply in regard to Mary.

@sarahmpata9763 8 күн бұрын

I had to scroll past a lot of comments to get to this. Thank you for pointing the mistakes in his argument.

@hypergraphic 4 жыл бұрын

First off, I grew up as an evangelical, so this is the first time hearing about this doctrine. The obvious rebuttal is what about her other children? But at a deeper level this sounds like an equivocation fallacy. How can God, who can commit no sin or tempt man to sin, do something to break his own law? Basically in order to get perpetual virginity, you are making the incarnation akin to the consumption of marriage, an act which for humans involves sex, but for God involved the agency of the Holy Spirit. But this would make God an adulterer because Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. Or are you saying that Mary was always bethrothed to God, in which case Joseph would be the adulterer if he slept with her? Sorry, this sounds like one of those doctrines thought up first, with scripture shoehorned on afterwards to make it fit.

@PhilipDNorris 4 жыл бұрын

I fully agree with you, that's exactly what I was thinking when I was watching this. They do their best to sidestep the "brothers of Jesus" issue saying that they were either cousins or step-brothers. The latter is done by declaring that Joseph was much older than Mary, a widower, and had children from a previous marriage. However, in ALL of these defenses of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the question still remains that if it was an indispensable doctrine of christianity, then why on earth did God place evidence in the Bible to the contrary? Why in Matthew 1:25 does it say that Joseph did not consumate his marriage union with Mary "UNTIL the birth of her FIRSTBORN"? It does not use the Greek word which is used in John 3:16 which translates as "one and only-born", it uses a different word which implies that Jesus was the first of multiple. You cannot make "brothers" into "cousins" because there was a separate word for that used in describing Elizabeth, Mary's cousin. If one tries to go the step-brother route, and the issue is as critical as they claim it to be, then why on God's green earth would God omit a simple sentence explaining that Joseph was a widower with children and he had made a vow with Mary to have an asexual marriage (which is not even a marriage according to the new testament)? If it was such a critical issue, why would God be careless in laying it out? God would have known if people needed one more simple sentence to make this critical issue rock solid and clear. Then they want to argue that Mary was betrothed to the Holy Spirit, while at thesame time being betrothed to Joseph, oh, and it was to protect Mary from society. Does that mean when it's convenient for you, you can lie? "Mary, people won't understand you being married to the Holy Spirit, so just tell them that you're married to Joseph, it doesn't really matter." That would be a God ordained lie, which is a contradiction because "God is not a man that He should lie..." Seriously, catholics?

@Catholic1391 4 жыл бұрын

Jesus never had other brothers, you need to read the whole Bible. www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers

@Catholic1391 4 жыл бұрын

Here a more deeper explanation of the brothers of the Lord. www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord

@isaacosahon4352 4 жыл бұрын

@@PhilipDNorris You want my advice Norris. Read Numbers 30 about married women concerning vows. An Israelite woman can be married and still have her vows before God provided the husband agrees. Next, you said marriage must be consummated in the new testament, but wasn't Mary under the law of Moses as a Jew? Though I have to admit, there isn't explicit evidence from scripture that supports Mary's virginity but there also isn't explicit evidence from scripture that denies the doctrine as well..... Those against the doctrine try to use from scripture: A. The until argument: but the preposition doesn't infallably describe what happens after. You need more information. B. The brothers/sisters of the Lord: Brothers/sisters have a wide range of meaning apart from being biological. C. The Firstborn argument: doesn't strictly imply other children. An only born is a firstborn as well. D. The sex must happen in Marriage: If the woman vows to be celibate and the man agrees, then this argument ain't convincing according to the law of Moses.

@bobpolo2964 4 жыл бұрын

@@isaacosahon4352 An argument from silence isn't convincing either.

@Randomhandleplaceholder 2 жыл бұрын

If you guys ask me, as a former RC, I think Mary had to be a virgin just for God to show that Jesus is special unless if I am wrong.

@lauramcdonald5004 4 жыл бұрын

This didn't convince me. I wish the Jewish law, historical context, and translations of the Bible texts had been even more flushed out in this discussion. What was said here was too surface level, felt like it was missing a ton of context, and didn't address enough of both sides of the argument. Im not convinced either way about Mary's perpetual virginity btw.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

Let me add some. It is cleared described in Ezekiel 44, 1-2: _1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 _*_The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it_* . Let’s check the Fathers of The Church: _”Some quite emphatically understand this closed gate through which only the Lord God of Israel passes … as the Virgin Mary, who remains a Virgin before and after childbirth. In fact, she remains always a Virgin, in the moment in which the Angel speaks with her and when the Son of God is born”_ . St. Jerome (Commentarium in Evangelium Lucae, PL 25, 430.) _”Only Christ opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which continued to remain closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate, through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed”_ . St. Jerome (Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2, 4) _”Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity”_ . St. Ambrose (The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , 8:52) _”She is closed because she is a virgin; she is a gate, because Christ has entered through her......This gate faces east, because she has given birth to him who rises, the sun of justice.....Mary is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but did not open it”_ . St. Ambrose (De Institutione Virginis, 8, 57. PL 16, 334)

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

Read Dr Brant Pitre's book "Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary." Excellent explanation. Also below is a talk 👇🏾he gave on Mary's role as the Ark of the New Covenant. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJ6xiKSCiK-WgKs

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

@@Serquss He is so easy to understand. IMHO the best teacher of the Jewish roots of the Catholic faith which is no surprise as he is a Professor of Ancient Judaism and the NT. Him and Brother Bob Fishman are great to watch. Now I understand a lot more about the Jewish roots of the Catholic faith. There are a lot of practices and traditions we have which are over 2000years old that I didn't know where they came from. People look at Catholic practices and traditions and have no idea what or why we Catholics believe/practice what we do. My protestant friends would ask me "why do Catholics do.this or believe that?" and I would give out inadequate answers. Now I understand why we believe and do those things, the Jewish roots of the Eucharist, Our Lady's role etc

@austindearmond2162 4 жыл бұрын

Laura McDonald Me either. He added a lot of anecdotal information that does not actually confirm his position.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

@@austindearmond2162 kzbin.info?search_query=mary+ark+of+the+new+covenant+pitre

@michaelogrady232 4 ай бұрын

"For the Lord has done great things for me." What are those great things? Daughter of the Father. Mother of the Son. Spouse of the Holy Spirit. "The Spirit will overshadow you." In modern parlance, the Spirit will marry you. (See the conversation between Ruth and Boaz. "Place the wings of your cloak over me.")

@gabrielegiuffre 4 жыл бұрын

PRICELESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@followingjesus1333 3 жыл бұрын

συνελθειν was the word used to show Joseph did not have sex till after the birth of Jesus . But the text is clear in verse 25 that once Jesus was born a normal marriage relationship was started

@jayschwartz6131 3 жыл бұрын

I guess you believe that once the presence of God left the Temple the jews used the Holy of Holies room for regular storage or sleeping, just like everybody would do with any other room. And because of that, at the time of Jesus, anyone, or at least any of the priests, would come and go in that room because it was their right. Am I right? And if Jews would able to find the Ark of the Covenant, they would use it to store stuff in it because after all it is just a fancy wooden gold lined box...but just a box after all and that is what anybody does with the boxes they own. Put stuff in them. And I wonder if after talking to God in the bush, Moses later on came back and cut the bush and used it for cooking and heating...because that is what people do with bushes after all. I wonder how normal the marriage relationship could be when angels tell to each one of the couple that the first born child is actually from God.

@StanleyPinchak 2 жыл бұрын

@@jayschwartz6131 still waiting for the protestants to show where in scripture it says that Joseph was the high priest. Oh wait, he isn't even from the line of Aaron.

@JonathanGrandt Жыл бұрын

This is such a terribly weak argument… It’s no wonder that I have never heard it before. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. You’re suggesting that she was consecrated to God, and therefore could not be with her husband? It’s so absurd.

@5inCanon66 6 ай бұрын

The moment he (Mr. Staples) said these words I was greatly disturbed and like the men of old, I felt like tearing my clothes apart and falling facedown: “…the fact that Mary is consecrated to the Holy Spirit she becomes what of course the franciscans championed greatly after saint francis of Assisi the SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT…” Now, he is saying that Mary is not only the mother of GOD but also the SPOUSE of GOD! WHAT????!!! I ask you now brothers and sisters, is this to you a sound doctrine? Did the Apostles believed and held the same view as Mr Staples’? Does this kind of thinking and reasoning still from GOD? In contrast, Jesus in His parables taught His disciples & apostles that He is the GROOM and the CHURCH is the bride - THIS is the real story, THIS is what we the bride of Jesus should believe in! Promoting this unbiblical doctrine desecrates the very essence of GOD - the Holiness of GOD. Let us all be like the Bereans. Meditate and examine HIS words - the scriptures, to see if what men are teaching, preaching, or promoting is true. To GOD alone be the highest glory, honor, and praise! 🙏

@followingjesus1333 3 жыл бұрын

Matthew 1:25 TPT [25] but they refrained from having sex until she gave birth to her son, whom they named "Jesus."

@jeffscully50613 Жыл бұрын

The "until" doesn't mean that they necessarily had sex after the birth of Chirst. "My grandfather didn't touch a drop of alcohol until the day he died." That doesn't mean that after He died, he drank. Jesus promised us He will be with us until the end of the age. That doesn't mean after the end of the age, He's going to leave us.

@followingjesus1333 Жыл бұрын

@@jeffscully50613 Yes it does that is the only logical conclusion . The until is clearly given a time limit “until she gave birth to her son” Matthew 12:46-50 NASBS [46] While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. [47] Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." [48] But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" [49] And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

@jeffscully50613 Жыл бұрын

@followingjesus1333 no. It doesn't. The Apostles, their students, the Early Church Fathers, everyone associated with Jesus Church agreed that Mary, the Mother of God, remained a virgin her entire Earthly life. It wasn't until AFTER Martin Luther's great heresy that anyone even questioned it. Even Luther and John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli believed it. The Protestant reformer John Calvin: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

@abigailbrannon9890 3 ай бұрын

Come from a Protestant background. I have never come across a Protestant who took issue with Jesus being conceived by a virgin birth. It’s the belief she remained a perpetual virgin that is debated.

@5BBassist4Christ 4 жыл бұрын

There are a number of problems I have with the perpetual virginity concept. 1.) Jesus had siblings. Matthew 13:55-56 "'Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?'" (story also in Mark 6:3). Luke 8:19-21 "And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, 'Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.' But He answered and said to them, 'My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.'" (story also Mark 3:31-35, and Matthew 12:46-50). John 2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days." Unless Jesus 4 brothers and unnumbered amount of sisters were all conceived of the Holy Spirit, Mary had sex after Jesus was born. But if these 6+ other children were also conceived in this way, why doesn't the scripture or anywhere in early church tradition talk about their esteem like Jesus? But rather, we see them flawed (unlike Jesus), in John 7:5 it describes their lack of faith: "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." (which kind of echoes Joseph in Genesis 37). (Total references of Jesus' brothers in the Gospels: 7.) 2.) Joseph's decree was to not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:24-25 "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." The point of Mary being a virgin when Jesus was brown as to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy: "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." Although Jesus was miraculously conceived, if Joseph and Mary went ahead and had sex before she gave birth, then this prophecy wouldn't have been fulfilled. After Jesus was born, the two married couple were now permitted to have sex. 3.) Paul argues against celibacy within marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:5 "Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control." The passage in Jeremiah 3:1-2 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 were taken WAY out of context in this video. Neither of these passages describes a woman who went astray from her husband, they BOTH describe a husband who SENDS his wife away (divorces her), and she ends up married to another man. Because the man has divorced his wife, he is not allowed to take her back after she has become another man's wife. He gave up his right to her. The story of David in 2 Samuel 20:3 shows his character, but you see him do the opposite in 2 Samuel 3:12-16, where David is in the process of taking the throne of Israel, and he makes a covenant with Abner on the condition that Abner bring him Michal, Saul's daughter, who was his wife until he had to flee from Saul. Saul then gave Michal to Paltiel instead. But now that David was no longer fleeing from Saul, he wanted his wife back, despite she was now married to Paltiel. Similarly, Hosea 3 describes a prophet being commanded by God to pursue his wife who had been unfaithful to him. "Then I said to her, 'You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you.' For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, and without ephod or household idols. Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His goodness in the last days" (Hosea 3:3-8). The entire book of Hosea is about comparing God's relationship with His people to the relationship between a husband and wife. In this parallel, worship is seen as the parallel to sexual union. When we go astray and worship other things, we are paralleling sexual union to other partners (adultery). This is why God is so against idolatry. When we go astray from God, He pursues us as Hosea did, but even after He restores us, there may often be a time of our souls being unready to embrace the intimacy of worship with such a holy God. But that doesn't mean God never wants us to worship again. Hosea gave Gomer a time of purification before he had sex with her again. In a similar way, God gave Israel a time of purification in Babylon before He returned them to Jerusalem where they could rebuild their temple, but the goal always was to bring Israel back into a faithful relationship with God which included worship. God shows His love in this: even when we are unclean to come and enjoy the intimacy of our relationship with God in worship as a husband and wife enjoy the intimacy of their relationship in sex, God comes along side us in a season of celibacy until the union is able to be rebuilt and the intimacy is able to be enjoyed again. The legality Tim Staples gave for a husband never returning to a sexual union with an adulterous wife is not Biblical. To build on top of this that Joseph couldn't have sex with Mary because she belonged to the Holy Spirit is also flawed, -a bad foundation causes an entire house to collapse.

@wesleysimelane3423 4 жыл бұрын

@Collins Anosike If a man were to be raised on the bible without "extra" info from the RCC, the teaching of Mary would be alien to him. You know why????? it's NOWHERE in scripture my friend

@megbonita 4 жыл бұрын

Please read Brant Pitre book Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary. Vows of perpetual virginity Number 30. All those brothers and sisters of Mary. They are not hers. We found their mothers.

@5BBassist4Christ 2 жыл бұрын

@@megbonita The vow of the young woman in Numbers 30 says nothing about it being a virginity vow, but rather a vow about anything. She could have vowed to always sleep on her back, and her husband could hear it and say, "You know what, that would be healthy for when you get pregnant, and so it isn't a bad idea to already be comfortable in that position." Or, it could be she vowed to always sleep on her right side, and the husband might say, "You know, sleeping on your back is the healthiest position when pregnant, so I'm going to annul that vow of yours." I'm not saying this is what the vow was; she could vow to cook using cinnamon as her only spice, or fill her car with gas every Monday (obviously not really). She could take the Nazarite Vow, or a prayer vow, or a regular fasting vow. She could vow not to have sex on the Sabbath. These are just examples, we could do a million different examples.

@BLINK4444 2 ай бұрын

I come from a protestant background and found this very convincing. What's the explanation for Jesus' siblings then?

@jessegandy7361 4 жыл бұрын

I just don't believe she was a perpetual virgin. I also don't believe in her bodily assumption. Nor do I believe she is a co-redeemer or co-mediator for people. I LOVE Catholics!! I truly do! When I watch Catholic Mass on tv, I often tear up. But I just don't buy the Mary dogma.

@alhilford2345 4 жыл бұрын

Then you refuse to accept the truth?

@reddeviltpra 4 жыл бұрын

Why don't you believe it?

@jessegandy7361 4 жыл бұрын

@@reddeviltpra I just don't think any of those things literally happened. I think it's more likely that Roman converts in 300 AD, converting from paganism, invented the Marian dogmas cause they were accustomed to female deities. Just my opinion.

@AJKPenguin 4 жыл бұрын

Lord, help my unbelief. Don't fret, just use reason and faith will fill in the blanks to create even more reason. Pray for me Jesse, I'll pray for you.

@Loreman72 4 жыл бұрын

@@jessegandy7361 I think you would need to prove that. Where are the records of theological disputes at the introduction of an innovation? Where are the early writings condemning belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? What goddess was it based on? Why that belief and not the others?

@seanpermann5570 7 ай бұрын

Although neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word for "cousin", both customarily spoke of a cousin as a "son of an uncle" (Heb. ben dod; Aram. bar dad) and the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, never translates either expression as "brother" or "sister". Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”-anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16).

@MrJijack 4 жыл бұрын

I like Fulton Sheen's interpretation of St. Joseph's divorce. St. Joseph did not see himself worthy to be the father of the Son of God and so he wanted a divorce. The Angel comes to assert to St. Joseph that he is chosen and is worthy to be Jesus's foster father.

@algorithm007ify Ай бұрын

in Matthew 2:20-21, the angel again tells Joseph, 'Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.’ So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.” Again, only Mary and the Christ Child are mentioned. There are no older children, which would imply that Jesus’ subsequent brothers and sisters were all younger and came along as the natural result of Mary and Joseph’s normal marital relations.... Also, you have Mathew 1;25 to contend with.

@Emper0rH0rde 4 жыл бұрын

*Why* do modern protestants get so upset at teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

@thomasfryxelius5526 4 жыл бұрын

1. We don't believe RCC can add doctrines to the christian faith. 2. We don't believe being celibate in marriage is a good thing (1 cor 7) 3. Jesus is said to have siblings, so it's not likely she remained a virgin. 4. It says Joseph didn't touch her until she bore Jesus, implying he did after. 5. The Marian dogmas all give Mary an exhalted position she is never given in the Bible. No human is supposed to be exhalted this way.

@mrballerpants3813 4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasfryxelius5526 The siblings idea is just because back then "brother" or "sister" could be used for cousins. and the Greek translation (that came before english) uses a translation of the word "until" that does not imply something happening after! hope this helps

@mrballerpants3813 4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasfryxelius5526 in response to 1.- we were first??? we were founded by Jesus and He said His church wouldnt be destroyed. in response to 2.- did you watch the video? and in response to 5.- that is an unbiblical belief

@thomasfryxelius5526 4 жыл бұрын

@@mrballerpants3813 Thanks for the response! I know it can be used for cousins but we have no reason to think so, especially since they often appear together with His mother as a family unit. The primary meaning is brother and sister and that´s why it´s translated that way. The word translated until, when I looked it up, simply means until. If someone said; "I was a virgin until I married." wouldn´t you think they then had sex? If someone said: "We waited to eat until the fast was over, wouldn´t you think they ate something after? Also, sex is a natural and expected part of marriage, so that also makes it more reasonable to think she did not remain a virgin.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

@Ezekiel336-16 4 жыл бұрын

Good stuff! In Christ, Andrew

@philotheos251 4 жыл бұрын

The Anglican scholar, Richard Bauckham, has a book called 'Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church,' and he admits that the "until" argument in Matthew 1:25 and the "firstborn" argument in Luke 2:7 are bad arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity. In Matthew's case, he is only trying to emphasise that Joseph has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. People who say they had carnal relations after Jesus's birth are reading that into the text. With regards to Jesus being Mary's "firstborn" son, all this means is that whatever is the first to open the womb is labelled 'firstborn' (as well as being consecrated to God) - as we're told in Exodus. It doesn't say anything about subsequent children.

@realstatistician Жыл бұрын

So those parts where it mentions his brothers and sisters- y’know like Mark 6, Luke 8- you’re just going to ignore those parts… Not that it has any bearing on anything anyway though!

@micahlefevre652 4 жыл бұрын

Strange lines of reasoning here. So Mary was married to the Holy Spirit?(not stated in scripture) And married to Joseph? And I can't grasp how the unprecedented conception of Jesus would remove Joseph's rights as a husband. The Virgin birth was accomplished, no reason then why the marriage bed would remain closed. Not to mention the blood brothers and sisters of Jesus, children of Mary and Joseph.

@hansonr22 4 жыл бұрын

Where are blood brothers and sisters of Jesus ever mentioned?

@micahlefevre652 4 жыл бұрын

@@hansonr22 Acts 1:14 Mark 6:3

@scottmitchell1974 4 жыл бұрын

Bro, you'll never get a satisfactory answer from Catholics. I LOVE the Catholic faith, consider them brothers/sisters in Christ, but this idea that Mary had to remain a virgin is beyond silly. The miracle IS the VIRGIN BIRTH!!! After that, the virginity is not necessary. At all. Miracle done.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

@Jeshhafterhours 4 жыл бұрын

Mary was a Virgin and so was Joseph ... im surprised that you even have doubts

@ninjason57 10 ай бұрын

The more important question is why would Mary's perpetual virginity be necessary?

@chickenshark9 4 жыл бұрын

Matthew 1:25

@choice12ozborne Жыл бұрын

The argument goes that Jesus had brothers. That word can be translated as cousins or very possibly and more probably Joseph had children from before. Mary was probably 13 or 14.

@paulc728 4 жыл бұрын

The part about Matt 1:20 “take” (paralambano) seems half thought out. Looking all all the references of that word online doesn’t suggest anything but that it means to take or grasp. And then he rewrites the text by ignoring the phrase “as” your wife. I mean grasping g at straws here.

@SonicSnakeRecords Жыл бұрын

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly-guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (see John 14:25, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (see Luke 10:16).

@GuadalupePicasso 4 жыл бұрын

In kind of a roundabout way, this all supports the oldest tradition regarding the marriage of Mary and Joseph: she had been a consecrated Virgin by her parents, Sts Joachim and Ann, who were already an aged couple when they had her. In a manner that evokes Abram and Sarai in the Old Testament, is how Joachim and Ann conceived the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary. Mary could only be reared in the temple until about the age of 13, as that is about when she’d have gotten her first period, which, according to Jewish law, would’ve made her ritually unclean. This is where Joseph came in. They were never expected to be married in the sense of having conjugal relations and raising children of their own, as Mary was a consecrated Virgin. He was to be, essentially, her guardian. The oldest tradition isn’t only that he was an “older man” (before anyone takes my words out of context, “older man” doesn’t necessarily imply that he was 80, or something like that, as life expectancy in that area was a very different thing than today), but that he was a widower. In fact, the oldest tradition even gives the name Salome to his deceased wife, even going so far as to say how many children they’d had. On these subjects, I defer to the older traditions, as opposed to some of the ideas popularized by some more modern writers of the western church.

@gomezjkv 2 жыл бұрын

There does appear to me to be a disconnect between the idea that Mary was both a perpetual virgin and without sin. The Jews at the time of Christ believed that the first and greatest commandment was the first commandment that God gave humanity given in Genesis 1 when God commanded Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and multiply”. Obviously Mary “multiplied” but with a single “child” she would have been seen as a sinner. I do not say this because I believe that what the people believed about Mary was of any consequence but that Mary would have lived in obedience to God in every way. In regard to Joseph having children from a previous marriage, why is there no mention of these children when he took his family to Bethlehem for the census?

@tobers_j 4 жыл бұрын

Bit confused then, what about Jesus’ siblings? Surely they weren’t also conceived of the spirit

@hezzerk73 4 жыл бұрын

Jesus was an only Child!!

@Bj0rn100 4 жыл бұрын

I think you can find you answer here: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers

@thomasfryxelius5526 4 жыл бұрын

@@hezzerk73 Except for His brothers James, Jude, Simon and Joseph (Matt 13:55) and His sisters.

@liamblumeris6933 4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasfryxelius5526 not Mary's children though. Joseph was much older than Mary and already had children. Why would Jesus say behold your mother. Of Mary already had children to take care of her? And Jesus's "brothers" were at the place of the skull. Surely Jesus didn't need to tell John behold your mother and mother behold your son. Jesus was firstly telling us that we must all behold our mother but also Mary had nobody to take care of her and therefore John took care of her. Jesus wouldn't say this if he had brothers and his mother had sons

@liamblumeris6933 4 жыл бұрын

@RetroMan okay prove to me why you say that. I can show you a number of 4th century Christians that believed that?

@jbar3337 Ай бұрын

@Tartersauce101 4 жыл бұрын

Definitely my biggest qualm with Roman Catholicism is this (to me) bizarre focus on her virginity. Accepting Christ as God being fully human, warts and all and yet this is not extended to Mary. Very strange. Luckily I find the issue of little importance compared to the rest of the dogma.

@androidaw7927 4 жыл бұрын

Knowing about science is small nuts in the realm of attaining eternal salvation, but it is still our duty to know about the truth of all things.The truth of the mother of God matters because it deals in the matter of truth, God.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

Read Dr Brant Pitre's book "Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary." Excellent explanation on perpetual virginity in there. Also below is a talk 👇🏾he gave on Mary's role as the Ark of the New Covenant. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYbHipiPrpiBh6M

@androidaw7927 4 жыл бұрын

@RetroMan didnt say it was more important than anything, but the truth matters, because the truth is a of God. It isn't stated specifically in scripture but it is not opposed

@gabymorketchup5045 3 жыл бұрын

Hope this helps 🕊kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIubimmPl9Vlqac

@Earthtime3978 Жыл бұрын

@@retroman8618It’s totally backed by scripture. “Firstborn” was a term used in Hebrew tradition no matter if a second child was born or not. That can be backed up by the OT. The word brother had wide semantic range. Even in a simple verse, 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.

@jvlp2046 8 ай бұрын

Matthew 1:25?... narrates that "he (Joseph - husband of Blessed Mary) KNEW (had marital sex) her not until she brought forth a SON and he (Joseph) called/named Him Jesus." The English word "KNEW or KNOWN" in the context of the Holy Scripture (Word of God) is a modest way to say "had Marital Sex."... nothing is CLEARER than this Biblical passage... However, since God took her VIRGINITY with her consent at a younger age (perhaps not even of legal age of 18 years old in our time), I firmly believe that God Almighty had RESTORED (gave back) Blessed Mary's Virginity before she died even after having other Biological Children from her husband Joseph... Nothing is Impossible with God if God wills it... When God takes something, God also gives it back... When God closed the Door, God also opened another Door... When God allowed the 1st Temple to be destroyed, God also allowed the 2nd Temple to be restored... This "VIRGINITY RESTORATION" of Blessed Mary falls under the SPOKEN/ORAL TRADITION of the early CHURCHES in Asia Minor of the 1st Century A.D. and not under the written/epistle Tradition taught by the Apostles of Christ... This became the Roman Catholic Doctrine of "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," which I firmly believe is God's sole doing and not Blessed Mary's self-doing alone... Glory, Praise, and Thanks be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen...

@mchristr 4 жыл бұрын

Do we really understand the biological details of Mary's pregnancy? Was it Mary's ovum or did the Spirit miraculously deposit a viable zygote into Marys' womb? Can Jesus be considered the son of Mary through gestation and delivery as he is considered the son of Joseph through adoption? The perpetual virginity of Mary still seems an answer to a question no one is asking. I'll read and pray more concerning this. Thanks Matt for the video.

@lauriemcbroom 4 жыл бұрын

Not a zygote, but a sperm!

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

Most probably an ovum of Mary was fertilized, for otherwise Jesus wouldn't have been biologically a descendant of David as promised

@spedchica05 Жыл бұрын

My understanding is that it had to be using Mary's ovum as Jesus was a decendent of David. Mary is a decendent of King David.

@andrejones2147 Жыл бұрын

@@spedchica05 where does it say that ? It does say that Joseph is from the line of David !

@Earthtime3978 Жыл бұрын

@@andrejones2147How do you think Jesus is the son of David? It’s from Joseph. Hence, through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David. AND, in Hebrew tradition, the mother is the queen, not the wife. That’s why Mary is called queen of heaven.

@JohnR.T.B. 4 жыл бұрын

I am a Catholic and I believe that Mother Mary is ever virgin and holy, not only because she has the status as the Mother of God, but also because of her many apparitions under powerful graces of God, and I believe in her apparitions she usually testified as the virgin anyway. John 7 : 1-16, Mark 6 : 2-4, Matthew 13 : 54-57 The Gospel quotes above from Mark and Matthew are the ones depicting the 'brothers' of Jesus and His 'sisters', Jesus' neighbors underestimate Him and look down upon Him. If you only read the passages plainly you might be mistaken, just like the neighbors or townsfolk in the Synagogue, to think that Jesus is nothing special, like how can He have such authority and power? since we know He is only 'a son' of a carpenter and a simple mother, and we know His 'brothers' and 'sisters' as working class people around. How can Jesus be the Son of God if He has mortal parents and siblings? as it seems. Well, if Mary had other children beside Jesus, it will be a sin in Luke 1 : 43 where Elizabeth calls Mary 'mother of my Lord' and then Mary would become a mother of some other mortals, in which we would call Mary as Mother of God, Mother of James, Mother of Joseph, Mother of Simon, Mother of Judas, etc. Can we put God, although appeared as a man, as just one among other humans? Mary and Joseph would have dishonored, and hence sinned against, God by engaging in sexual relations when they knew the miraculous conception of Jesus and His divine nature by the will of God and yet they insisted in their own earthly desires and commitments. If Mary and Joseph are not holy, Mary would be a sinner and this would also be unfitting to the incarnation of God. So who are these 'brothers' and 'sisters' of Jesus? I think it is written as such to show extended families from either or both Mary and Joseph and hence they seemed to outsiders as 'brothers' and 'sisters' of Jesus as they focused on Jesus. And in John 7, Jesus' brothers in Galilee might as well be his friends He knew since childhood or fellow religious friends. The other thing about Joseph in Matthew 1 : 25, the Greek word is ἐγίνωσκεν (knew) regarding how Joseph did not commit to his (holy) family life with Mary after Jesus was born, which I take it as simply Joseph started calling Mary his wife and living a family life in chastity, because as explained how they must honor God from the graces and responsibilities they received. Without doubt, God's power and graces worked greatly in the holy family, for Christ.

@ruthsandra1521 4 жыл бұрын

Amazing! Really, really well explained! Thank you so much🙌

@warren6790 9 ай бұрын

Most people don't have a clue what this particular word used for Mary which in Hebrew is alma, it's only used three times in the old testament referring to a young woman, however this word goes beyond the meaning of just a young woman but actually indicates her age, just as the word betulah in Hebrew is also referring to a virgin but also indicates age, both of these words are argued among scholars and can only come up with a young woman in their translation, a never ending argument that carries no proof, they could prove in their time if a young woman was a virgin or not, we can also do that in our time but no one wants to accept the truth, the two words that has everyone confused because they think they mean the same thing is the main problem with translating them, one is virgin and the other is virginity, I see no need to go into great detail trying to explain the difference but I can assure you this, one can be proven and the other can only be believed, a woman of any age can have virginity however a TRUE virgin which Mary was would have been impossible for her to get pregnant, I am saying this because of what I know a miracle to be and what many think is a miracle which is not, the true virgin (alma) which Mary was, would have been impossible to conceive a child and it wouldn't have mattered if she slept with a man or not, not having a understanding of the customs in ancient times, specifically the Jewish customs, is why all the arguing exist among gentiles and among the Jews as to what these two words mean, not willing to admit it because of the shame it brings to them, also people not having a understanding of WHY Jesus had to be born from a virgin and not just a young woman having virginity just don't understand the significance of His BLOOD, in this the whole world has been deceived, among other issues but this being a very important one, I know how old Mary was at the time God and the Holy Spirit came upon her but you will never figure it out from their scriptures by the way it was translated

@michaelcahill5200 4 жыл бұрын

I'd always thought that Jesus' brother James was proof that Mary and Joseph had consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus.

@louisacapell 4 жыл бұрын

That and it says they didn't "know" each other UNTIL Jesus was born.

@pixelprincess9 4 жыл бұрын

James was a relative to Jesus, but not a full brother. Either he was a half-brother of Jesus from a previous marriage of Joseph or he was a cousin of Jesus. In Hebrew, the word for brother can also mean cousin. You can look in Genesis where Abram calls Lot his brother frequently even though they are cousins.

@andreaslacher1148 4 жыл бұрын

@@pixelprincess9 I agree that brother can also describe a close relative, but Lot was not the cousin of Abram, he was the nephew.

@PuzzlesC4M 7 ай бұрын

For me it's simple. If Mary had other children, her attention would be diverted from serving Jesus. As perfect model of the Church, it is fitting that she would be wholly focused on Christ.

@internetenjoyer1044 4 жыл бұрын

I don't have a problem with the belief. You could even convince me of it. But infallible dogma? Give me a break. It's the quintessential pious opinion.

@androidaw7927 4 жыл бұрын

If it is true, then anything else would be a lie.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

Scriptural support for the role of Mary.👇🏾 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYbHipiPrpiBh6M

@m.e4752 4 жыл бұрын

@@masterchief8179 Will i go to hell if Mother of God, Mary remaining forever a virgin is not important to my devotion to God? I definitely believe Mary was a virgin, but whether she remained a virgin, it doesnt really matter to me. Will I go to hell?

@Catholic1391 4 жыл бұрын

@@m.e4752 www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord

@user-fc9iq6le2g 10 ай бұрын

But what about the verse that says joseph didnt know her until after?

@abigailbrannon9890 3 ай бұрын

This is a good question

@josephgreen1553 4 жыл бұрын

Why was this never mentioned in the Gospels, Acts, or letters? This seems to be adding an interpretation into the text instead of letting it speak for itself (in the case of his brothers mentioned in the Gospels). I know LDS members that do the same thing, so how is that any different?

@humphreyobanor866 4 жыл бұрын

Not everything was written bro

@josephgreen1553 4 жыл бұрын

@@humphreyobanor866 Seems like an awfully big thing to leave out in the earliest writings. I'm more than happy to convert if it's true.

@gjj655 4 жыл бұрын

If the early church all believed it to be true (which is very likely given the direct passing on of oral tradition from the disciples themselves) then why would they state the obvious? A bit like the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. No christian questioned it for 1500 years because it was a given not because it was invented 1500 years after. There is so much balanced and well researched evidence for this point of view (also explaining why the "brothers" of Jesus couldn't have been his brothers at all if you match up the names of the different Marys at the Crucifixion and their children) my advice is to look up and learn for yourself. It's something I from time to time struggle with too however there comes a point where your reason is convinced and then you must make the leap of Faith.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

Scripture is not to be interpreted in a vacuum or through a white western lens. Consider first century Jewish cultural traditions. Jesus was looking after his widowed mother, lived with her for 30 years. Upon His crucifixion, who looks after Mary? The Jewish cultural and social norms of the day dictated that the surviving children would take in and look after the mother. Jesus looked down from the cross at his heartbroken mother who had nobody left to take care of her. We know she had no other children because Jesus requested that Holy Apostle Saint John take her into his home and care for her which he did until her Assumption. Also "brothers" meant many different things as it does today. Best friends who hang out with each other refer to each other as "brothers", soldiers refer to each other as "brothers in arms". In my middle eastern culture for over a thousand years a person from the same tribe is referred to as my "brother/sister".

@Romans5.1 3 ай бұрын

“Mt 1:25 Knew her not. A Hebrew form for conjugal intercourse. The language of the verse does not imply the perpetual virginity of Mary.” ??

@josephjackson1956 4 жыл бұрын

So the Holy Spirit snatched Mary from Joseph?

@priscillaferrara2844 4 жыл бұрын

There’s a book called Consecration to Jospeh that explains the relationship of Mary and Joseph. They were both consecrated to God as virgins, had an immense amount of chastity and were deeply in love with one another. The nature of their marriage was supernatural from the beginning.

@davidthewitness 4 жыл бұрын

@@priscillaferrara2844 The Bible says nothing remotely close to what you speak of. To infer this without strong biblical proof text would be to build an entire house on a faulty foundation. Much like what Mormons or JW's teach which is problematic at best

@priscillaferrara2844 4 жыл бұрын

David Adeniyi Well, lets not put the mormons and JWs on the same footing as the Catholic Church, who wrote and compiled the Bible. I don’t subscribe to sola scriptura. That may be the foundational difference between you and I. Peace brother ✌️

@basedoppenheimer1497 Жыл бұрын

So all those arguments sound fine but I am really perplexed at the framing "Mary is married to the Holy Spirit." Is this language even licit and cohere with how the Church Fathers and Saints would frame it and The Church? I am having trouble with this framing. I think there needs to be more nuance unpacked in how marriage is conceived in ancient Israel and how The Catholic Church conceives it in light if Mary's Virginal Perpetuity.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

St. Joseph was the husband of Mary in the common usage of the idea of marriage. The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity.

@BlacklistUniverse 5 ай бұрын

David's wives weren't taken. His concubines were. You should know this.

@SknappCFA 4 ай бұрын

Catholics need to stop all the defensiveness about Mary. She, as venerated by the church, is a construct of tradition. That’s OK because the church accepts tradition, when inspired by the Holy Spirit, as a dogmatic source. There is very limited scriptural support for the church’s teaching about Mary, so stop trying to create it. Cobbling cryptic scripture references together does not lead to compelling exegesis. “The church says so and I believe it,” works in this case.

@Bobadak1 Жыл бұрын

All About Mary! In our current sexually permissive age it is difficult to fully appreciate the scandal caused by the pregnancy of Mary when in the espousal stage of her marriage, with Joseph (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:27; 2:5). Mary explained how she came to be pregnant, but Joseph, like all the others, did not believe her. He could have had Mary stoned to death for adultery (Lev. 20:10; Dt. 22:22-24; Jn. 8:1-5), but, because of his love for her, Joseph decided to divorce Mary quietly to lessen her embarrassment and shame. It took an angel of God, by way of a dream to a sleeping Joseph, to convince him that Mary was not guilty of adultery (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-56). Therefore, Joseph did not have Mary stoned to death, or divorce her, or even observe the Jewish law of jealousies (Num. 5:11-31). However, Mary’s reputation would be tarnished for the rest of her life for being pregnant while in the espousal stage of her marriage to Joseph. The Pharisees saying they were not born of fornication is proof of this truth (Jn. 8:41). The prophecies of a son, born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Mic. 5:2) had to be either ignored or discounted by the Jewish religious leaders and common citizens alike in regard to the pregnancy of Mary and the birth of the Lord Jesus, her first born son (Mt. 1:22-25). It should be noted that after the birth of the Lord Jesus, Mary made a sacrifice for her own sins, in the manner that all Jewish women were to do after they had a baby (Lk. 2:22-24, 39). The instructions of how Jewish women were to make an offering, for their own sins, after having a baby was given by God to Moses, who recorded them in Leviticus 12:1-8. The fact that this was to be an offering for sin or an atonement by the new mother is stated four different times in this passage. Thus, the belief and teaching that Mary was born sinless and never sinned throughout her life is biblically false! Another false belief and unbiblical teaching is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her lifetime. The biblical account reveals that Mary and Joseph sexually consummated their marital union after the birth of the Lord Jesus and together they had four additional sons with an unknown number of daughters (Mt. 12:46-47; 13:53-56; Mk. 3:31-32; 6:1-3; Lk. 8:19-20; Jn. 2:12; 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19). Nothing is recorded or is known about the sisters of the Lord Jesus Christ. The doctrines of election and free will are clearly taught in the holy Scriptures! These doctrines appear to be incompatible but actually complement each other as is clearly illustrated in the three stages of a Jewish marriage, which are 1. Engagement, 2. Espousal (Song 3:11; Jer. 2:2; 2 Sam. 3:14; 2 Cor. 11:2; Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:47; 2:5) 3. Marriage Supper. The names of all human beings are placed in the Lamb’s Book of Life upon conception in their mother’s womb (Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 21:27). Thus, every human being has been elected by God to be saved in heaven throughout eternity. This confirms that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9). However, in our current Age of Grace, every man and woman, upon reaching their age of accountability MUST trust solely, by faith alone, in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ for their personal salvation to keep their name in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Jn. 3:15-18; 14:6; 20:30-31). Therefore, the CAUSE of salvation, upon reaching the age of accountability, is simply believing and the EFFECT of believing is to have a change of mind and ways [repentance] and identifying [baptism] with the Lord Jesus. An explanation of all the previous statements and much more may be found, read, and confirmed in the treatise entitled, A Biblical View of the Past, Present, & Future that is posted on www.endtimewarnings.org. Maranatha!

@protochris Жыл бұрын

As a Catholic, I find it difficult to accept Mary's perpetual virginity. In Matthew 1:25, it says of Joseph "He knew her not, until she bore a son". I understand the defense might be that Matthew was only emphasizing that Joseph was not intimate with Mary at anytime during her pregnancy, but the language is more suggestive of a subsequent relationship. We learn later that Jesus had 4 brothers, and at least 2 sisters. The Catholics say these might be cousins, but the Greek text doesn't allow for it. Then it's stated they were from Joseph's earlier marriage. That's unlikely because when Joseph traveled to bethlehem, there is no mention of any children along the way. It would be difficult to believe they were all adults out of the house.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

quote; I understand the defense might be that Matthew was only emphasizing that Joseph was not intimate with Mary at anytime during her pregnancy, but the language is more suggestive of a subsequent relationship. Why couldn't Matthew have been talking about the time before Jesus was born? I don't disagree that the word "until" can mean something changed afterwards, but the Church has been teaching the PVM for 2000 years, orally and written, so why would you go against that? quote; We learn later that Jesus had 4 brothers, and at least 2 sisters. The Catholics say these might be cousins, but the Greek text doesn't allow for it. It certainly does allow for it! Where do you see the text talk about Mary being pregnant with anyone else but Jesus? Where does it say things like "Mary's and Joseph's other children", or "the sons of Mary and Joseph"? Why weren't any other children mentioned when they went to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve? Why didn't His mother go and live with any one of the other 6+ children when Jesus died? quote; Then it's stated they were from Joseph's earlier marriage. That's unlikely because when Joseph traveled to bethlehem, there is no mention of any children along the way That's quite an interesting statement since the Catholic Church asks the same question about the supposed siblings of Jesus when they all went to Jerusalem, where were they? There is absolutely NOTHING Biblical that prevents Joseph from having had children from a previous marriage when he married Mary, and these are the ones who are called His brothers and sisters. Not saying I definitely adhere to this theory, but it is not against Scripture for it to be so.

@protochris Жыл бұрын

@@jzak5723 A. I agree the church has held the position of Mary's perpetual virginity for 2000 years, but it's not essential theology to believe it. B. The bible doesnt say the "children of Mary and Joseph", because the language didn't use that circumlocution to describe a brother. C. The text wouldnt discuss any of Mary's other pregnancies because it begins with Jesus birth, and with the exception of his temple visit, fast forwards to his adult ministry. D. When they went to Jerusalem in Luke 2:41-44, it says (They) "Mary and Joseph" sought Jesus among the relatives (family) and acquaintances. That's inclusive of everyone. It's also possible Jesus only had older sisters then, not brothers. E. Mary didnt go to live with the other brethren, because his siblings were doubtful of his claim to be the Messiah, but not John.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

@@protochris A. The Church says you must give your assent to all Marian dogma's, even if you don't completely understand it. B. I would have to research that further. C. The NT could surely have mentioned the other biological children of Mary and Joseph somewhere in one of the 27 books, don't you think? And I mean saying it in a way that would leave no doubt who these brothers and sisters were. D. So you think Jesus had biological sisters and you are a Catholic? E.This sounds Protestant to me, not Catholic.

@protochris Жыл бұрын

@@jzak5723 Theological concepts of Mary that are faith based should be adhered to, but Mary's perpetual virginity is a historical claim derived in part from tradition. B. Only the gospels and Acts of apostles mention Mary, so that's 5 books of the 27. Those are the books that should be intensely studied. C. I'm not basing my judgement on Catholic or Protestant, only by what is claimed by scripture. I admit I'm up against the claims of mostly all the church fathers. They all believe in the perpetual virginity, yet provide differing explanations. Since they have different opinions for it, I consider the entire issue open to discussion.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

@@protochris What exactly do you mean by "open for discussion"? How long have you been a Catholic? You didn' really comment on my particular statement that the Church requires that you MUST give assent to all the Marian dogmas in order to be considered a Catholic in good standing or full communion, even if it may be hard to understand how the Church arrived at these teachings. Not sure if you are giving your assent to all of them, or just some of them? YOU: but Mary's perpetual virginity is a historical claim derived in part from tradition. ME: Yes, and as a Catholic you should understand that we are not Bible only Christians, but that Sacred Tradition has equal standing alongside the Word of God, since we believe Jesus gave the Apostles authority to teach, and would have the Holy Spirit to help guide them. YOU: Only the gospels and Acts of apostles mention Mary, so that's 5 books of the 27. ME: Ok, so its 5 out of 27, the focus of the NT is on Jesus, not Mary, which it should be. YOU: They all believe in the perpetual virginity, yet provide differing explanations. Since they have different opinions for it, I consider the entire issue open to discussion. ME: I'm pretty sure that there were some slight differences in how the early fathers understood many things related to our faith, such as the Trinity, baptism, salvation, Eucharist, Papacy, etc. The fact is, the Church Magisterium has always ironed out these differences over time, and established formal teaching on these things and put it into writing.

@LloydDobler123 8 ай бұрын

Wait. The best argument for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary is that "Joseph would have known" she was "consecrated to the Holy Spirit????????" I came here with an open mind trying to learn more about the RC position, but - with all due respect - this actually a worse argument than I was expecting. Can anyone here point to a better resource? (And I really appreciate and enjoy PWA!)

@douglasmc98 9 ай бұрын

Didn’t really follow the reasoning here with David’s concubines. Saying that Joseph having sexual relations with Mary violates OT consecration of marriage doesn’t make sense if you’re using multiple wives and concubines as a proof. Maybe that still shows some of the understanding of taking a woman after she has lain with another man but that still isn’t a true example of marriage to begin with. Seems more cultural than theological reasoning on that front

@POXudes Ай бұрын

How is Matthew 1:24-25 to be interpreted then?

@randyugno4955 2 жыл бұрын

Who's mother was Jesus brothers? And if Mark was Jesus' cousin why he wasn't called Jesus brother?Joseph and Mary live together until Jesus got older. Did they live together and both are celebate? The virgin is literally meant for maiden.Joseph and Mary were engaged and surely be married later on.

@georgeemmert6211 5 ай бұрын

What about Matt. 1:25 It says knew her not till shad had delivered Jesus? Why the word till?

@mikeoxmaul1788 4 ай бұрын

They say "until" does not mean what we think it means.

@masterchief8179 4 жыл бұрын

@jakubratajczak9269 Жыл бұрын

Joe Heschmeyer adds the fact that there wasn't any law precisely preventing the couple from intercourse during bethrodal. It happened, sure, but wasn't forbidden. So another question is, why they did not do it before? Tradition states that Mary took an oath of purity/chastity. It' worth mentioning.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

Do we really know for sure about such a law in the Jewish first century? If there was one, I think we can be confident that Mary and Joseph wouldn't have broken it.

@gerd37 2 жыл бұрын

Remember that Mary is the NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT as told to us in the Book of Revelation. What is true for the Ark in the Old Testament is true for the Ark in the New Testament--PURE.

@spedchica05 Жыл бұрын

Sex with one's husband does not make her "unpure"

@maurdib 4 жыл бұрын

Mathew 12:47, Why is this so hard to believe? John 7:3. It's like you guys are blind. The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. So please find me another wife of Joseph I guess that will help

@isaacosahon4352 4 жыл бұрын

Read the verses you posted. Yes they point Jesus as the son of Mary. And Yes they point out James, Joses, Jude and Simon as Jesus brothers. And yes they point out the sisters of Jesus. But it is a very big leap to assume that brothers and sisters imply biological brothers and sisters. I know this because brothers and sisters have a wide meaning in the bible. I would agree with you if the bible gave the information that Mary gave birth to the Lord's siblings. But that's not in the bible, hence we disagree.

@isaacosahon4352 4 жыл бұрын

@Adrian Pritchard Now you are just taking another big leap with your interpretation. but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:25 RSV-CI. By your interpretation Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. 1 Timothy 4:13 RSV-CI. By your interpretation, Paul is advising Timothy to stop preaching, teaching...... when he comes. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 1 Corinthians 15:25 RSV-CI. By your interpretation, Christ must stop reigning after all His enemies are under his feet. If your friend greets you with this, "God be with you till (until) we meet again". Does he/she means that God won't be with you when you all meet again? Now can you see the problem with the "until/till" argument. The word 'until' does not infallably define what happens after. You need more context for that....

@isaacosahon4352 4 жыл бұрын

@Adrian Pritchard Now you hold on a minute and answer my question concerning the verse: And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” Luke 1:30‭-‬31‭, ‬34 RSV-CI The question is this: Mary got the news that she will bear a son, but she was betrothed to Joseph. If she actually planned on having kids with him, why would she ask, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" Is it that she didn't acknowledge Joseph as her husband (unfortunately some Christians accept this)? Or is it that she has already vowed to be a virgin despite being married to Joseph? After all she was a woman under the law of Moses, who was free to obey the law in Numbers 30 concerning vows. Love to hear your answer.

@Loreman72 4 жыл бұрын

@@isaacosahon4352 Indeed. Her question makes no sense if she was expecting to have children with Joseph in the first place.

@SaintCharbelMiracleworker 4 жыл бұрын

@Adrian Pritchard A phrase like this is used to emphasise 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 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.”)

@micahlegare893 4 жыл бұрын

Y’all lost me with this argument. Why would God have Joseph go through with his marriage to Mary if He didn’t intend for Joseph to consummate the marriage? Nowhere did God tell Joseph he was not to consummate his marriage with Mary after Jesus was born. Wedlock is between 2 HUMANS, and the reason Mary was a virgin is because no MAN had been with her through Jesus’ conception

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

Why would God? How about 1) To guarantee His Son an earthly father. 2) To prevent the stoning of Virgin Mary (due to getting pregnant out of wedlock). 3) Due to the law of levirate (even if Mary hadn't been stoned, she would have been completely dispossessed for not being able to inherit anything). 4) So that it was more evident to the people that Jesus was descent from David. 5) Because it would have been unjust and unfair to Mary to leave her pregnant with a Child that He put her in charge of.

@atear2616 2 жыл бұрын

@@JatnaRD 1. Why would Jesus need an earthly father? He is already morally pure, and God could provide for any needs (as he did for Israel in the wilderness). 2. God protected Jesus. Why couldn't he have protected Mary? 3. Refer to 1 4. Fair 5. He did leave Mary pregnant with a child that she was in charge of.

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

@@atear2616 1) Because Jesus became man, and it is important for human boys to have fathers. Moreover, it protected Mary's reputation. 2) He could have protected Mary. And actually He did. He didn't do it the exact same way that He did Jesus. He did it the way that He saw fit. Mary needed far more support as a pregnant woman and then as a mother that adult Jesus. It is also good. It is also a way of allowing everyone to more easily know that Jesus was descendant of the tribe of David.

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

@@atear2616 by law Mary had to marry Joseph.

@Forerunner42 Жыл бұрын

So many scriptural gymnastics for something that wasn’t a tradition until hundreds of years after Jesus’ ascension. The apostles and early church fathers did not teach Mary was a perpetual virgin and rejected the Protoevangelium of James as a heretical text. It wasn’t until the council in Ephesus that established the dogma of the perpetual virginity. TLDR: no eyewitness testimony, protoevangelium of James was considered non-canon by early church fathers, no early church father taught perpetual virginity until AFTER 3rd century. Dogma.

@jzak5723 Жыл бұрын

First of all, there were many things that JESUS said and did that were not written down in Scripture, so why is it that something like the PVM needed to be written down in Scripture? What reason would there be to reject it simply because it may have originated as an oral tradition passed along until it was written about in a later period document that survived and was preserved? We don't reject the NT, for example, simply because we have no surviving copies of the original manuscripts, the earliest we have are a few from the 2nd century, and most being copies, or copies of copies made in the 3rd century onwards. The point of me telling you this is that when we see the PVM spoke about in the 3rd century or after, it is only because it is quite likely earlier writings that were made which mentioned it just didn't survive/were lost. As for the POJ, the Catholic Church has always rejected it as fraudulent, but that still does not mean that there isn't some truth's contained in it. The source of the PVM doctrine is the fact that Mary was perpetually a virgin and the whole Church remembered this fact, beginning with the Apostles. The Protoevangelium of James reflects the existence of this tradition and incorporates it into a legend about Mary, but it does not originate the tradition. Also, it is incorrect to assume that it wasn't taught until it was declared a dogma of the Church, because we clearly can see that it was taught much earlier, the dogma of the PVM was pronounced in 553 AD at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and we have early fathers who were already teaching it 300 years earlier. So, why did the Church wait so long to define the Marian dogmas such as the PVM? For the same reason it took centuries to create the canon of the Bible and define the dogma of the Trinity at the First Council of Constantinople: There was a debate over them, and clarification was needed, which can only be done by putting the beliefs in writing and making them official. It was the Church saying “we’re making these teachings crystal clear and publicly settling this debate once and for all”. The Church already collectively believed what the Church defined, it just wasn’t in writing yet. Does that mean the early Christians didn’t believe in the Trinity til the year 381? No. The Church defined it then to clarify the doctrine so that all Catholics could understand it, and to correct the heretics who were attempting to discredit it at that time. It was the same with the Marian doctrines later on.

@rdh288 4 жыл бұрын

A lot of assumptions here. Primarily, he assumes that God miraculously impregnating Mary is treated the same way as intimacy, in that it must happen in marriage. That causes a lot of problems. Since Mary was already exclusively claimed by Joseph, that means that the Holy Spirit committed adultery with a "legally married, betrothed" woman. And then Joseph formally married someone else's wife. Also, Matthew 1:20-25 is worded really weird if they were never "together". Why point out that "he 'knew' her not till she brought forth their firstborn son" if he "knew her not" afterword as well? Also, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:32, Luke 8:20, and John 2:12 reference his siblings. All four gospels.

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

The "he knew her not" can be seen as a simple affirmation of the fact that Mary was a virgin (as prophesied) when she gave birth. If you take the text of the whole narration you see that the points that are being said are to explain and certify that the prophesied miracle of a virgin conceiving and giving birth was taking place. Therefore it is not odd that it says that he didn't have relations until she gave birth. For instance, Jesus says that He is with us every day until the end of the world, which isn't to mean that He will NOT be with us after: the emphasis and point and information given is about what happens before, not about what happens after.

@JatnaRD 2 жыл бұрын

About the siblings, if you see Acts you see hundreds of brothers together, and in the Old Testament you find people with 600 brethren. Homes back then often contained more than one family, and so uncles, aunt's and cousins often lived together. The cousins that lived in the same home were called "brethren". In Spanish to this day the cousins that are children of the siblings of your parents are called "brother-cousins" or "sister-cousins".

@spedchica05 Жыл бұрын

My problem with this is that he is making it sound as if the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary, which He certainly did not! She was a virgin. I always thought of it more like a spiritual insemination. Not sex. So nothing that would prevent Joseph from having normal marriage relations with her afterward.

@johnscott7937 Жыл бұрын

Exactly, especially using the example of David, his concubines and Absolom. One could argue Mary was a 'spiritual virgin, perpetually', meaning she didn't serve other gods or fall into spiritual adultry/Idolatry. Mary remaining a physical virgin or not really has no effect on the work of Jesus on the cross - who cares? Matthew 1:25 and later passages about the siblings of Jesus seem to disprove the perpetual virgin ideology 🤔

@Mike-qt7jp Жыл бұрын

First off, MATTHEW 1:24-25 24 says, "Then Joseph, having been awoken from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to himself his wife, 25 and did not know her UNTIL she had given birth to her firstborn Son." Then in Matthew 13:55 it says, " Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Please look up this verse in a Greek concordance. The words translated as brethren, and sisters mean just that, NOT cousins or any other relative. If you look at the plain reading of scripture it is pretty clear; Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born and then they had four sons and at least two girls. OR are you trying to say that these six siblings of Jesus were also immaculately conceived? Be HONEST! If Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit to have Jesus, and then AFTER his birth, she assumed normal marital relations with her husband Joseph and over the course of time they had four boys and at least two girls, isn't the above verses be how that would be described? I see absolutely nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin.

@Nolongeraslave 4 жыл бұрын

This is the problem I find with former Evangelicals now apologists for Catholic Church. They tend to be experts in reading too much into bible texts. She made a vow?????? Really? Mr. Staples will be held accountable for what he teaches.

@kdmdlo 4 жыл бұрын

Yes ... we would want to try to understand the Bible (unless, of course, it supports your position ... then that's ok).

@Nolongeraslave 4 жыл бұрын

@@kdmdlo Better still is to understand the scriptures to arrive to a meaning God intended them to mean, not what men assign to them.

@kdmdlo 4 жыл бұрын

@@Nolongeraslave Which is exactly what these gentlemen are doing. But let's get to the heart of it. Who has the authority to decide what is the correct interpretation of scripture? And it simply can't be "every person does, through the work of the Holy Spirit" because that approach has led to 30,000+ denominations of protestants ... none of whom can agree on what the Bible means. Wouldn't it be great if Christ had appointed a prime minister with authority. Someone upon whom a Church could be built. Someone who could bind and loose sins. Sounds a lot like the job of Pope, the first of whom was Peter.

@Nolongeraslave 4 жыл бұрын

@@kdmdlo By what Authority does Tim Staples teach that Mary took a vow? Where did he read that in Scripture? Scriptures were authored by the Holy Spirit. Have that in mind.

@Trekkie-zn6zb Ай бұрын

why the belief that Mary remained perpetually a virgin and did not have other children with Joseph may **Exploring Why Catholic Beliefs About the Virgin Birth May Be Misguided** **Introduction** Catholic theology, with its rich traditions and doctrines, has been a guiding force for millions of believers for centuries. One of the most central tenets of Catholic faith is the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. This doctrine holds that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, without any human intervention, preserving her perpetual virginity. However, with a closer examination of the original texts and a deeper understanding of the context, we find that this belief may not align with the true biblical narrative. My personal theology challenges the traditional Catholic interpretation and offers a more nuanced understanding of the conception of Jesus. **The Mistranslation of "Virgin" in Isaiah 7:14** At the heart of Catholic doctrine on the virgin birth lies the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which is often cited as evidence that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. The traditional translation of this verse reads: *“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”* However, the original Hebrew word used in this verse is “almah,” which more accurately translates to “young woman,” not necessarily a virgin. This mistranslation has led to the widespread belief in the virgin birth, a doctrine that has shaped Catholic theology for centuries. The Catholic Church has held onto this interpretation, viewing it as essential to the understanding of Jesus’ divine nature. But when we correct this translation to reflect the original meaning, it opens the door to a different interpretation-one that suggests a more natural conception. **A New Perspective on the Conception of Jesus** My personal theology posits that God took on human form and engaged in a consensual, sensual relationship with Mary. This relationship led to the conception of Jesus, who was born as both fully God and fully human. This interpretation does not diminish the sanctity of Mary or the divinity of Jesus; rather, it offers a more intimate understanding of how God chose to enter the world. In this context, Mary was not simply a passive vessel, but an active participant in God’s plan. The traditional Catholic view, which emphasizes Mary’s perpetual virginity, overlooks the possibility that God might have chosen to enter into a fully human relationship to bring forth the Savior. By engaging with Mary in this way, God fully embraced the human experience, making Jesus’ dual nature as both God and man even more profound. **Why the Catholic Doctrine of the Virgin Birth May Be Misguided** 1. **Theological Implications of the Mistranslation** The Catholic doctrine of the virgin birth hinges on the mistranslation of “almah” as “virgin.” By adhering to this mistranslation, the Catholic Church has built an entire theological framework that may not align with the original intent of the biblical texts. This framework suggests that Jesus’ divinity required a miraculous conception, bypassing natural human processes. However, when we correct this mistranslation, it becomes clear that the prophecy of Isaiah could have been fulfilled through a natural, human conception, with God taking on human form to engage in this process. 2. **Mary’s Role in the Conception of Jesus** The Catholic belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity elevates her to a status that may inadvertently diminish her full humanity. By insisting on her virginity, Catholic theology presents Mary as almost superhuman, distancing her from the lived experiences of ordinary people. My theology, however, affirms Mary’s humanity and her active participation in God’s plan. By consenting to a relationship with God in human form, Mary played a crucial role in the incarnation of Jesus, making her a partner with God in a way that is both deeply human and deeply sacred. 3. **The Nature of Jesus as Fully God and Fully Human** The Catholic doctrine of the virgin birth emphasizes Jesus’ divine origin but may inadvertently downplay His humanity. My theology, on the other hand, affirms that Jesus’ conception through a natural process highlights His dual nature as both fully God and fully human. By entering into a human relationship, God fully embraced the human condition, ensuring that Jesus, born of this union, carried within Himself the fullness of both natures. This understanding makes Jesus’ incarnation even more profound, as it shows that God did not shy away from the human experience but fully entered into it. **Challenging the Doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity** Another key aspect of Catholic belief is the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, even after the birth of Jesus, and that she did not have other children. This belief is central to Catholic veneration of Mary, but it faces significant challenges when examined in the context of Scripture and a more natural understanding of human relationships. 1. **Biblical Evidence of Jesus’ Siblings** The Gospels mention Jesus’ siblings multiple times, which challenges the notion that Mary remained perpetually a virgin. For instance, in Matthew 13:55-56, the people of Nazareth ask, *“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?”* This passage clearly references Jesus’ brothers and sisters, suggesting that Mary had other children with Joseph after Jesus was born. 2. **The Natural Role of Marriage** Marriage, within the cultural and religious context of Mary and Joseph, would have naturally included a sexual relationship and the bearing of children. By maintaining that Mary remained perpetually a virgin, Catholic doctrine places Mary in a role that is atypical and contrary to the natural and cultural expectations of married life. My theology affirms that Mary and Joseph likely continued to live a normal married life after Jesus’ birth, fulfilling the natural role of marriage and family. 3. **The Impact on Mary’s Humanity** By holding to the belief that Mary remained perpetually a virgin, Catholic theology risks distancing Mary from the human experience. My interpretation, which accepts that Mary had other children, acknowledges her full humanity. This understanding does not detract from her special role as the mother of Jesus, but rather, it honors her by affirming her as a complete and fully realized human being who lived within the normal expectations of her culture and faith. **Conclusion** The Catholic Church, with its deep traditions and long history, has upheld doctrines about the virgin birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity as cornerstones of its faith. However, when we examine the original texts and consider the implications of the mistranslation of “almah” as “virgin,” as well as the evidence of Jesus’ siblings, we find that these beliefs may not fully align with the biblical narrative. My personal theology, which suggests that God took on human form to engage in a consensual relationship with Mary, and that Mary later had other children with Joseph, offers a more intimate and profound understanding of the conception of Jesus. This theology challenges traditional Catholic views by affirming both the divinity and humanity of Jesus in a way that respects the natural processes and relationships through which He was conceived and raised. By embracing this interpretation, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the mystery of the Incarnation and the profound love that God has for humanity. May this understanding lead us to a more meaningful relationship with the God who became one of us, walking our path, sharing our joys and sorrows, and ultimately redeeming us through His life, death, and resurrection. Amen.