I'm not surprised you refuse to publicly quote Scripture in the original language and in its English translation, because you know the word "siblings" isn't used in either language.
Was Mary sinless?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'm not surprised you refuse to publicly quote Scripture in the original language and in its English translation, because you know the word "siblings" isn't used in either language.
The best way for Catholics to let the world know that their statues are talking is call the national inquirer.
I did not say “siblings “was in the Bible. I was using it to describe Jesus‘s mother, brothers and sisters that’s described in the Bible.
I also gave you the verse that said Joseph knew her not till. You know, until. What married people do.
Yes, you did, because you said, "The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings." However, no, they don't, and to prove it, I told you to quote those verses in its original language, as well as in English, and see for yourself, but you refused because you know the word "sibling" isn't used.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament states:
In a recent post, “A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,” Brant Pitre at Singing in the Reign wrote that Numbers 30, a chapter dedicated to vows taken by women, provides a biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong.
Numbers 30 proves the existence of vows, not a biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine of the PVM. Numbers 30 points to it.
First, let me summarize Pitre’s argument. Pitre said that “according to some commentators, it [Numbers 30] appears to specifically be concerned with vows of sexual abstinence taken by married women” (emphasis his).
Pitre emphasizes that the key to understanding the chapter on vows made by women is Numbers 30:13. He cites 30:13-15 as follows (the emphasis in verses 13-15 are his):
Context: Vows to “Afflict Herself”
Numbers 30
[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. [
14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
[15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.”
Pitre quotes Jacob Milgrom in order to explain that “to afflict herself” in Numbers 30:13 [H 30:14] means to abstain from sexual intercourse. Pitre wrote:
That's not the point Dr. Pitre makes. The point is the historical existence of vows.
Dr. Claude:
"Pitre concluded that Numbers 30 deals with a vow of sexual abstinence, he applied his interpretation to Mary and her relationship with Joseph. He said that Mary “took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband–in our case, Joseph–heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage.”
A historical basis for the existence of vows. Dr. Claude doesn't get it. Then he says,
"Thus, Pitre’s exegesis of Numbers 30 does not provide a biblical basis for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Numbers 30 deals with vows women made that required payment of goods or property. The regulation was enacted because fathers and husbands were responsible to make good on the vows their daughters and wives made. In addition, the prohibition of abstaining from sexual relations, which Pitre applies to Numbers 30, refers not to women’s vows, but to the priest and Levites serving on the Day of Atonement."
Straw man. Priests and Levites serving on the Day of Atonement are not married women, who have taken vows of sexual abstinence, binding if the husband says nothing.
Last edited:
So? He is not telling us to do it now.
Actually, you don't. But it is your choice if you want to be sucker-punched.
He didn't. He wouldn't sacrifice his clout, but Jesus was completely pure.
Would you argue for a perpetual regenerating virginity? Are only females born with it?;)
God saying His Word is eternal means what He says, including "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," applies even now.
Jesus says to love our neighbor, including enemies. You know this. You've read it. You may want to disobey by not doing that, but I don't.
God didn't what?
It applies only if you have God backing you up with miracles.
Enemies are not necessarily peers. Jesus said, not Jesus says; there is a difference.
He didn't become a man.
According to who? Not God. And miracles occur where there is faith.
God saying His Word is eternal means what He says, including "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," applies now and forever.
How was Jesus (God Incarnate) not a human?
Last edited:
Yes, per God it was. God doesn't want you to be a fool. Miracles are not caused by faith. God decides if it is necessary.
Only if God is actually helping is that wise advice. It isn't wise advice.
How is he "God incarnate" other than through idolatry?
No, it isn't per God.
I didn't say they were caused by Faith. I said they occur where there is Faith. Before Jesus administered a miracle to someone he either required them to have sincere Faith, or administered a miracle when it would lead them to Faith.
Then ask for His help. He generally won't help those who don't want His help, because He respects one's free will.
Jesus called Himself God more than once. It's why the Pharisees said they were going to kill Him for "blasphemy" because He was "making Himself God." Only God could take on and redeem the sins of mankind, past, present, and future, in body and spirit. A perfect sacrifice. It's because God is Spirit, and thus immortal, that God the Word became human so as to die physically, and die spiritually by experiencing abandonment from God the Father for a time.
Last edited:
No, I did not, I just said siblings as a description of Jesus‘s brothers and sisters. Funny how you Catholics read between the lines.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
“eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus was quoting Psalm 22. He couldn't cite the whole Psalm because He was dying. If you read the whole Psalm, God didn't abandon Him.
I said "abandoned for a time." Jesus was abandoned for a time, which is why He said He was abandoned by the Father.
Yes, you did, you said, "The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings." However, no, they don't, and to prove it, I told you to quote those verses in its original language, as well as in English, and see for yourself, but you refused because you know the word "sibling" isn't used.
After the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've already known about Her vow, and thus he obviously didn't call off the wedding.
Why would Joachim only have either annulled Mary's vow or nixed any betrothal? Another possibility is that Joachim and Anne brought Mary to the Temple to live as a temple virgin because She wanted to, and they supported Her in that decision. In the end, as I've said, Mary's response to the angel Gabriel's announcement indicates She had taken a vow of virginity, and was abiding by it as a betrothed woman to a man who already knew of it, and never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.
Last edited:
All I said was that that would be a far more likely response to the virginity vow you posit Mary took than continuing to arrange a marriage -- to a celibate-vowing man, the only kind of man Joachim would then consider for Mary's husband. And even you say that Joseph wasn't that man until he reacted to hearing Mary's vow!
After the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, and thus he obviously didn't call off the wedding.
You said that it is even more likely that Mary would have told Her father, Joachim, about Her vow before Joseph even entered the picture, and that he would only have either annulled Her vow or nixed any betrothal. Why would he have only done either of those two options? And, again, another possibility is that Joachim and Anne brought Mary to the Temple to live as a temple virgin because She wanted to, and they supported Her in that decision. In the end, as I've said, Mary's response to the angel Gabriel's announcement indicates She had taken a vow of virginity, and was abiding by it as a betrothed woman to a man who already knew of it, and never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.
I asked do you rule out the possibility that Mary told Joseph of Her vow, and in reply he said that he wanted to be chaste for God as well in marriage. I also asked do you rule out the possibility that Joseph was a Nazirite (Num. 6) when He met Mary, meaning someone already accustomed to taking vows of dedication for God, and was told of Her vow, and in reply he said that he wanted to be chaste for God as well in marriage.
Last edited:
Similar threads
