English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Both Calvin and Luther believed that she is ever-virgin.

2007-11-13 04:08:41 · 25 answers · asked by carl 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Their ears will be itching for false doctrine.....

2007-11-13 04:14:41 · update #1

If Calvin and Luther were wrong were does that leave you who are their offspring.

2007-11-13 04:40:15 · update #2

Calvin and Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of the mother of God.

2007-11-13 04:43:06 · update #3

25 answers

Realizing she had sons and daughters makes it hard to believe she is a perpetual virgin.

2007-11-13 04:13:40 · answer #1 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 7 8

Can you cite the references? If so they were both wrong but Luther died a Catholic anyway so....... the main reason would be that it is not true and they read and study the Bible.
Matthew 12
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him

46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

Mark 3
31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Answer: The scriptures are plain and decided about the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters. "Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56). It is evident that the Greek adelphos (brothers/sisters) is used in the case of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the flesh. There is also no evidence or reason to say that these were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

Why is there any doubt about Jesus having brothers and sisters? In the first place, it must be understood that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Matt. 1: 18-25). Hence, Jesus' brothers and sisters were subsequent to Jesus' birth (see also Matt. 12: 47). The main reason there is controversy over this matter is because of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, a Catholic doctrine. You see, part of the reason for the worship of Mary is because of the belief that Mary was "holy" in a special sense, even to the point of never having other children.

The fallacy of the perpetual virginity doctrine. As we have seen, the Jews who best knew the family of Joseph and Mary not only knew that Jesus had siblings, but they knew the names of Jesus' brothers. If Catholicism can be wrong about this doctrine, how about their doctrine of salvation by meritorious works, the Pope being the head of the church, and holy water salvation (Tit. 3: 5; Eph. 1: 22, 23, Matt. 28: 18; Matt. 26: 28)?

Beloved, the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were obviously the offspring of Mary and Joseph does not in any way take away from Jesus' identity. Jesus remains "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1: 29). He is truly the Son of God (Jn. 3: 16).

2007-11-13 04:41:45 · answer #2 · answered by pwwatson8888 5 · 3 5

The birth of Jesus was conceived by Mary, a virgin. The conception is part of the Gospels that only he was born of a virgin. Calvin and Luther did not believe she was always a virgin. Jesus had siblings, and there is no passage that indicate that they were born of a virgin. You see, to believe that she was always a virgin, makes that belief not only erroneous, but a cult belief. Mary was Jesus' mother who listened to God, but she is not to be worshiped, only Jesus. When questions such as this arise, check the Bible for reference. A Bible Concordance works well for searching the truth.

2007-11-13 04:32:31 · answer #3 · answered by Snoot 5 · 2 5

Instead of asking why someone else doesn't believe, perhaps you should ask why you DO believe.

I'm not saying that anyone in particular is wrong, but you are talking about something that cannot be proven. You have only second-hand information to base this on.

2007-11-13 04:34:43 · answer #4 · answered by Darklighter 4 · 3 2

The denial of Mary's perpetual virginity is just another in a list of everything else "catholic" that is denied. I think the motivation is just for that reason.

2007-11-13 04:51:50 · answer #5 · answered by Danny H 6 · 4 2

Mary was a virgin when the Holy Ghost conceived Jesus inside of her. Later on, Mary did marry Joesph & had more children. It is disgusting how so many blind, ignorant people mock these holy things. However, the Bible said it would be this way, Jude is a good example.
As for the Protestants {and I am not one} or anyone else, who denies the virgin birth, he or she does not know God or the scriptures.

2007-11-13 04:26:42 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus Loves Connie 3 · 2 6

Wow, we think we're making a difference answering these questions backed by proof and yet the ingnorance and misconceptions run rampant! But here you go for those who actually care to read and learn:

1) The Bible frequently speaks of the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus.

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

2) A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew's gospel. "He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.

It is not so hard to believe that deeply devout, law-abiding Jews would remain celibate in marriage given the supernatural miracle which had taken place, Mary being the Mother of the Messiah, the angel visiting Joseph in a dream, the knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.

"For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time. "

Such dedication to God is rare any more, but it was certainly an expectation of that time. Mary being pregnant by the Holy Spirit and giving birth to God incarnate was certainly no ordinary thing...it was amazing. It was the very miracle the prophets, whom Joseph had read and was well schooled in , had told of and prophesied about. This would have been so huge to him, we have no idea.

2007-11-13 04:31:10 · answer #7 · answered by Misty 7 · 7 5

Wow - they know nothing.

Ok, folks, if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, why did He tell John the Apostle "behold your mother"??

If there were other children, in Jewish culture, thay would have taken care of her.

2007-11-13 04:35:16 · answer #8 · answered by SpiritRoaming 7 · 7 1

Please read the following passage from scripture and then tell me again that Mary is a virgin...

Matthew 1:24-25 (NIV)
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

2007-11-13 04:20:56 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 4 4

The word for "young girl" was mis-translated from the original. The original writings did not say she was a virgin after she conceived Jesus. No such thing as a "virgin birth". So there's no way she could remain an ever-virgin. She was still a young girl after she conceived Jesus, not a virgin.

The ambiguous translation occurs in Isaiah 7:14, an Old Testament scripture which was translated from Hebrew into Greek around the 3rd Century B.C. There are two Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a young girl, depending on context. The word used in the original Isaiah is Almah, and refers in its context to a woman already pregnant, indicating that the 'young girl' meaning was the one intended. I should note that some scholars dispute this, stating that Almah also means virgin, but in a different sense (perhaps a spiritual metaphor?)

The suggestion is not, therefore, that the New Testament itself, upon which the Catholic Church is based, contains any ambiguity - quijote quotes from Luke and Matthew, missing the point that these Gospels would have been specifically written in order to fulfil the Messianic prophecies made in Isaiah. The mistranslation in Isaiah prompted the authors of some of the Gospels to add further legitimacy to Jesus' status as the Messiah by stating that his mother was a virgin.

This mistranslation in fact is disregarded, or not properly addressed, by the Catholic Church, which in its past has been extremely selective about which texts to include as part of its canon and which to consign to the wastebucket of religious history. Not all the Gospels maintain Mary's virginity, but only four are included in the New Testament Bible.

2007-11-13 04:20:40 · answer #10 · answered by bandycat5 5 · 1 10

I suppose Calvin and Luther were wrong according to the word of God.'
Mary had other children and all were not immaculately conceived,

2007-11-13 04:22:06 · answer #11 · answered by djmantx 7 · 6 6

fedest.com, questions and answers