Is Mary A virgin And Did She Have Just One Child?

[uapo4]

This is an interesting point. I can answer your questions very well actually. Mary is blessed because she had Jesus Christ. If you don\'t believe that, sorry I don\'t think I can help; that\'s why I said I don\'t need to explain that part.

Before I go on to try and answer your questions about \"first child\" and \"never laid until\" etc, I will like to pose this question to you: WHAT IS YOUR TRUE OBJECTIVE IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW? WHY ASK IF YOU ARE SO CONVINCED? Your response to this will prompt my next response.

I\'ve come to appreciate one thing in life, especially when it comes to philosophical or theological arguments: there are some things I don\'t know and I don\'t need to find a proof for (the ever virgin case is excluded). When someone wants to make an argument in an area, try to find out the objective and see if it is any beneficial - the last part will make me know if it is worth the time or is it simply a matter of sages trying to prove their argumentive skills without any true nourishment.

I maintain that Blessed Mary is ever virgin. Please answer my capitalized questions, then I\'ll go on to give you reasons if I see worthwhile. I also plead that you take no offense and let this not degenerate to \"Silence of the Rams\" post.

[Prince]

I hear you, regarding Silence of the Rams.

About your question, one thing I don\'t do is answer a direct question with another question, not for want of ability.  I asked you questions based on what you expressed.  You don\'t have to answer it.  I wouldn\'t be offended.  Is it fair to ask questions of me while you sit on mine?

I don\'t know that we ought to have an agenda before posting here.  The question I raised is not unique to this site or this generation or any other generation.  I\'m not the first to raise the topic and will not be the last.  Go to the web, it\'s all over the place.

Suppose I respond to your question with some of mine, what would you say?  Why do people post here?  Do they have an alterior motive?  Do you think I have a hidden agenda?  If so, what is it?  So, you see, there is no lack of questions.  If one is fired your way, you either answer or you ignore it.  Nobody is gonna come ramming your door.

I\'m not here to convert you.  I\'m here to present my belief and why I believe it.  I pride myself in my knowledge of the scriptures.  I did not come by it easily.  You may have observed that I can hold my own in othe areas, also.  How come you never qestioned the motive behind other posts of mine?  I\'m glad you don\'t want a repeat of Silence of the Rams.  There\'s nothing ailing this site that civility and cordiality towards one another won\'t cure.

[uapo4]

Okay. Thanks for appreciating my belief as well.

[Prince]

Hereunder, find the reasons behind my belief.  This is my case in a nutshell.

Mtt 1
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. The use of the term firstborn implies there were others to follow.

Mtt 13
55: Is not this the carpenter\'s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Here, the locals who knew Jesus and his family well and testified that they were neighbors, identified Mary by name and went ahead to enumerate her male chikdren.  They even hinted she had daughters, too.  

Mk 3
31: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32: And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.  See where this small group of family members came looking for Jesus.  Notice that they stood outside and sent for Jesus.  That\'s what family members do.  Others would push their way through, throw themselves at Jesus\' feet or asl to be healed or something.  But this group, like family members who know Jesus was theirs, were polite and did not want to disturb him.

Mk 6
3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4: But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.  Here, by giving the verse 4 response, Jesus acknowledged that the people who identified hid brothers were homeboys.

John 7
3: His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
10: But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. Here, Jesus\' brothers, impressed by his work didn\'t want to monopolize him byr instead, advised him to leave town and spread his goodies abroad.

Gal 1
16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord\'s brother.
This passage is important in that as Paul was relating his life as a Christian, he mentioned that he went to visit with Peter and did shack with him for 15 days.  But he added that in that period, the only apostle he saw besides Peter was James whom he qualified as the brother of Jesus.  if Jesus had a brother, who better to know than Paul?

[uapo4]

Very good, very good. **I, Uzoma, keep strolling here and enjoying this post** Here comes some reasons and counter-argument to your posts Prince. Blessed Mary is ever virgin and that\'s my belief. Here are the reasons: (some of these are not my original work):

Here\'s regarding the argument of brothers and sisters:
It was Hebrew custom to refer to relatives by the generic words \"brother\" and \"sister,\" which is manifested in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament. In reality, such references to the \"brethren\" of the Lord are, for the most part, cousins. We know this from ancient tradition and from clues within the Gospels, which would preclude any siblings to Christ. For instance, if the Lord had brothers, it would have been inappropriate for Him to have entrusted our Blessed Mother to Saint John the Apostle, as we read in the Gospel of Saint John. Did you ever see a place in the gospel where it says James or Jude, sons of Blessed Mary?

Next, here\'s regarding the argument of \"until\" that you keep mentioning: - by John Father Echert
Saint Matthew was commenting only upon the fact that Mary had NO relations with Joseph prior to the birth of Christ, which confirms what was said to Joseph by the angel and to Mary in the Annunciation, namely, that this Child was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Saint Matthew has no intent of suggesting that later they had marital relations. It is a non-issue in the text, and only has become an issue in the face of heresy, which rejects what has been the constant teaching of the Church, since Apostolic times. Read on: The Gospel of St. Matthew records:

1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. While modern English readers might be inclined to think that the word ?until? (which accurately translates the Greek) implies that after the birth of Christ, Mary and Joseph did have relations, such an assumption is unwarranted. True, in many instances in which we use this word we do intend to indicate something subsequent, but not in this Biblical text. In fact, the concern of St. Matthew is to teach us that RIGHT UP TO THE MOMENT that Jesus was born, Mary had no relations with Joseph. Hence, the Child born of them could not have been by any natural means but was by divine conception. St. Matthew does not address anything beyond the moment of birth in this regard and implies nothing, one way or the other. For those who are still skeptical with regards to ?until,? please note a sampling of other Biblical texts which use this word with no subsequent implied action: Gen 8:7 -- the raven \"did not return UNTIL the waters were dried up...\" Question: Did the raven return? NO! Deut 34:6 -- Moses died \"and no one knows his grave UNTIL this day.\" Question: Have we found Moses\' grave? NO! 2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal \"had no children UNTIL the day of her death.\" Question: Did she have children after she died? NO! 1 Macc 5:54 -- \"...not one of them was slain UNTIL they had returned in peace.\" Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO! Luke 1:80 -- John the B \"was in the deserts UNTIL the day of his manifestation to Israel.\" Did John the B stay in the desert? YES! (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4) John 4:49 -- \"Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!\" Did he die? NO! Rom 8:22 -- \"...the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.\" Is it still groaning? YES! 1 Cor 15:25 -- \"For He must reign UNTIL He has put all enemies under His feet.\" After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning? YES! Eph 4:12-13 -- \"...for the equipping...for the work of ministry.... for the edifying....UNTIL we all come to the unity of the faith....\" Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary? YES! 1 Tim 4:13 -- \"UNTIL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.\" When Paul arrives, no more reading, no more exhorting, no more doctrine? NO! 1 Tim 6:14 -- \"....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ\'s appearing...\" When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments? NO! Rev 2:25-26 -- \"But hold fast what you have UNTIL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power...\" Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns? NO!

I respect everyone\'s beliefs because none of us are fools to not have a reason for believing. And so I am not really trying to convert either, although if you know you\'ve learnt something because of my post and henceforth choose accordingly, then great! I just feel that one needs to have the facts straight.

Truly speaking, I think that you should let the truth come to you and don\'t resist it. If you play in the philosophy of language or reasoning, you can almost always find a reason for doubting. This I do not have control over, but hope that within yourself, you\'ll know the truth and accept it.

[Susia]

@Prince, I never said one was trying to convince me, but if you strongly believe that Mary ceased to be a Virgin after the birth of Jesus and had more kids? Why raise the question? or are u trying to get people\'s views from the topic. Apparently you are not quite sure of your views because:


Quote:
Prince:
We are all investigating in the hope of excavating the truth. Even if the truth is found in this forum, no one here has to convert.
 If you are still investigating, then you are still not certain about your anwers to the above topic.

First lets review the referred verses again:

\'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?  (Matthew 12:46-47; 13:53-56)

I will begin by clarifying first the meaning of the word \"brother\" as understood at that time. It did not only mean the son of specific parents, it is also used throughout the Bible to indicate other levels of relationship including cousins, nephews, and so forth. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:14 Lot is called the brother of Abraham yet the Bible clearly states that Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Then again in Genesis 29:15, Laban is referred to as the brother of Jacob, yet in the same verse we are told that Laban was Rebekah\'s brother (Rebekah was Jacob\'s mother). Yet again in 1 Chronicles 23:21-22 we find a similar reference. Now many English versions of the Bible will use the word kinsmen or brethren in these places but the Hebrew word is the same. Understand that both Hebrew and Aramaic are simple languages, resulting in many words having multiple meanings. Therefore, in the absence of distinct terms for the various levels of male relationships the same word \"brother\" or \"brethren\" is used.
The second point to consider is the fact that James and Joses are in Matthew, Mark, and John\'s Gospels referred to as the sons of Mary the wife of Clophas (Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25). Many early Church historians believe that Clophas and Joseph, Jesus\' foster-father, were either brothers or cousins. Regardless, it does refer to Mary the wife of Clophas as the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This would explain the use of the word \"brethren\" or \"brothers\" in the two verses referenced to earlier. We know less about the Simon and Judas, but our third point should be able to solidify the fact that Jesus had no siblings.
Within the Jewish tradition, as within most traditions for that matter, it would be highly unlikely for a son to entrust his mother to another man, who was not a brother, if he had other siblings.

In John\'s Gospel we read:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, \"Woman behold, your son!\" Then he said to the disciple, \"Behold, your mother!\" And from that hour the disciple took her to his home. John 19:26-27

Within the Jewish tradition, if the father is dead, the mother is the responsibility of the eldest son, if he dies the mother is then entrusted to the next son in line.
It just wouldn\'t make sense for Jesus to entrust Mary to St. John, nor for St. John to take her into his home if she already had family to live with.
My fourth and last point will be the continuous belief in the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary for over 2000 years.

Quote:
Prince:
Here, the locals who knew Jesus and his family well and testified that they were neighbors, identified Mary by name and went ahead to enumerate her male chikdren. They even hinted she had daughters, too.

@Prince,the verse you referred to, said nothing abt the people being Neighbours to Jesus. Remember, he was teaching and preaching to a multitude of people in the synagogue.I dont know where you got  neighbours from.
Furthermore, that the term Firstborn was used does not neccesary mean that Mary had other kids subsequently that Until was used does not neccesary mean that an event has to followed e.g refer to Uzoma\'s findings from the scripture.

[Prince]

Uzoma, I was hoping you could see it in you to bring this debate to a conclusion without directing an inappropriate remark to somebody.  It was you who said,

\"I also plead that you take no offense and let this not degenerate to \'Silence of the Rams\' post.\"

 Yet, you saw it fit to direct the following statement to me.

 
Truly speaking, I think that you should let the truth come to you and don\'t resist it.

Do you think that is cool.  This is the exact thing that started the fracas you referenced.  But I\'m not gonna let it get to me as your former adversary did.  I know me and my capabilities.  You don\'y have the truth; I don\'t have the truth.  The truth is burried in the bible.

So, you think you\'ve got the truth; the one that will come to me? Not many hours ago, over at the Nigeria Problem topic, you advised us not to sit and wait for God\'s help, but do something.  Now you are telling me to sit and let the truth come to me.  Now, you take the high ground to tell me not to take offense.  Maybe, at \"what annoys you the most,\" I should have included this \"When people direct unpleasant remarks at others and tell them not to take it personally.\"

What do you mean \"some of these are not my original work?\"  Nothing there is your work.  You lifted somebody else\'s literary work, without creditting him, and you think you\'ve got the silver bullet.  What else is there to do that dance on my grave.  Not so fast, bro.  It will take more that this to put me six feet under.  If I fired a rebuttal, you\'ll not be able to address it given that it\'s not your work and you\'ve no idea of his sources.

How many times do you think I\'ve comfronted these isssues.  These are the kind of opponents I have wiped floors with, in symposia and public debates, which included priests, monsignors, and bishops.  If this was in a court of law, I\'d beat your man here like a drum.

All through the peice, all he keeps presenting is what\'s on Matthew\'s mind.  What is he, a psychiatrist, a mind reader, or what.  I\'d throw this argument so far out of court he\'ll need a taxi to go find it.  He has no way of knowing what wa on Matthew\'s mind or what he intended to convey.  He couldn\'t read what\'s on his mind let alone what was on St Matthew\'s mind 2000 yrs ago.  We can only go with what\'s in the book, which god ordained as perfect and complete.  

His other rebuttals are so lame, they boarder silly.  Look at his litany of \"until\" usages. Who does not know that \"until\" is a conjunction, temporarily framing a time period.  It does not mark out a permanent period.  At the end of the said period, re-evaluation of the issue will be made.  Things may continue or be reversed, according to the situation.

Take your raven example:  This is what the bible says, \"6: And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.\" The raven went back and forth.  But when the waters receded, the to and fro flying was expected to stop, for the bird to resume normal life.  If it was a pet, it would return, or fly away if a wild bird.  So it was with Mary and Joseph.  Their celibacy lasted till the birth of Christ.  After that, life returned to normacy; married couples continued with what married couple did.  

Take another one, \"Michal \'had no children UNTIL the day of her death.\' Question: Did she have children after she died?\" Michal did not have children until she died.  That was the end of the moratorium.  After that Michal continued with whatever dead people do, which includes not having children, gaaa leee.

I could burst open everyone of your man\'s example but what the use?  You are the one who\'s got the truth, right?

Yes Mary was blessed more than any woman.  She hit the jackpot.  She was selected among the countless women to carry God himself.  She was full of grace.  and what is grace?  That which you receive without merit.  it wasn\'t as a result of her deed that earned her the favor.  That fact is not contested.

[Susia]

Well, I am going to throw in my flag! I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Hope fully i\'ll know the truth one day.

[Prince]

Good for you, Susia.  I\'m out of here, too.  I think we\'ve had enough of this for now.

But before I go I just wanna answer only one of your questions:

@Prince,the verse you referred to, said nothing abt the people being Neighbours to Jesus. Remember, he was teaching and preaching to a multitude of people in the synagogue.I dont know where you got neighbours from.

Neighbors came from the following passage. See the bold remarks/

Mk 6
3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4: But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Here, by giving the verse 4 response, Jesus acknowledged that the people who identified his brothers were his homeboys.

The people knew mary and her family well.  Besides, Jesus aknowledged that he was of the same country, kindred, and house as these folks who  were bitter at him.

It\'s Prince over and out.

[Susia]

Oh, dia  it is!!!!!. Oh Now I see where you got it from. Thanks though for clarifying it for me.
 
I am out of here biko and just for the record I am Anglican .
I have no problem learning from people at all. Having said this, I AM OUT. Prince please wait for me, I \'m right behind you abi you right behind me.

[uapo4]

Chai!!! Once again I\'m guilty of appearing in a personal attack mode. I\'m sorry Prince by using \"you\" as it appears in the part of my writing that you quoted. It is wrong on my part.

Things like this make me remember my human side and how I could err :oops: Pardon me I plead. I\'m glad you brought it to my attention and I\'ve swallowed it well.

Regarding my belief in Blessed Mary, I\'m sure it\'s not in doubt and I\'ve given my reasons too. With that being said, I respect everyone else\'s views which may or may not differ from mine. Take care all and thanks.

[chizor]

This is why i stay clear of religious debates. Anyway, all of you that are heading out....there\'s no way out as i have the key. You must all remain in here and provide me with an answer to this debate.

[Prince]

@ Uapo4: Spoken like a true gentleman.  No problem.  It\'s done and over.  

You are one of the pillars and architects of this site.  Your success depends on the writers who can generate controversial and thought-provoking discussions.  You will, not only hold old members, new members will be attracted.

Besides, you cannot afford to antagonize me, knowing that I\'m your General, commanding your troops, over at the Republic of Top Site Users .

[Prince]

Chizor, you\'re gonna have to let us out, pleeeez.  Go through the entire debate with a fine tooth comb; I\'m sure you\'ll find your answer some where in the tangled web.

Moreover, we\'ve got Madam President Susia in here.  You don\'t want to be charged with kidnapping and unlawfull imprisonment of the President, do you?

Besides, Uzoma is King of this site.  Uuuuuuuh, we\'re talking treason here.  You might go to jail for life, if you don\'t the firing squad.  Think about what you are about to do.  Most of all, think of your future children, the ones whom you will give all those antiquated names I gave you.

Remember that as the General, I have ordered my men to surround the building.  You don\'t wanna do this.  You don\'t wanna go out like this.  The President and I promise to have your grivances addressed, if you let us out.

[Prince]

Gboo nwanne m, Chizor, it\'s not religious issues, it\'s we, the people, who handle it.

The lord said, \"where there are two ot three of you gathered in my name, there also I am in their midst.\"  There is not better way of inviting Jesus in our midst than a healthy religious discussion.  

So try not to stay clear.  Throw in your two cents whenever you can.  If you can\'t, just listen; you may come away with something if that\'s your desire.  You see, e wezuga oku, anyi a gaghiiri ama na oka na-achi-ochi.