# A couple of biggies...



## GeauxLSU (May 2, 2005)

Was Mary forever virgin?  
Did Jesus have siblings?  

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Woodsong (May 2, 2005)

I thought we weren't going to talk about baiting Phil!

Ok-I'll bite.  

No, I don't think Mary was a virgin forever.  
Yes, I believe Jesus had siblings.  There are biblical verses that state these items.

Funny you should ask this b/c my wife and i were just discussing these exact two questions about 2-3 days ago.


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 2, 2005)

Was Jesus a virgin?
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## Woodsong (May 3, 2005)

I certainly hope so but if not thank goodness for God's grace!


----------



## gordon 2 (May 3, 2005)

Mary was a virgin in the spiritual sense. Her faith was mighty and trusting of the Holy Spirit. What makes us clean or pure, what is inside? or a once a season dip in the lake?

Phil do you think she twisted the ear of Jesus a couple of times? She was a servant of God. She was at Jesus' birth, became his teacher, his desciple and was present at his death, and a witness at his ressurection.

I believe that the best explanation I have found is that Mary's virginity is a theological perspective to point out that Jesus' birth was not of man's will, but the outcome of God's will. Mary said "Yes" to God, like David and the Prophets. Her gifts were that of motherhood: guide ( she socialized him ) and she shared her faith with him. Her calling was no less than Isaiah's, her faith no less than Noah's. To mark her Greatness thealogians do not give her one and make her seperate from others who give birth since Eve.


The devine birth was especially a spiritual birth and not a  simple carnal birth. And as for having other siblings, well Mary's birth canal was her business, not mine. LOL Or I don't know and think it a minor point in the scheme of things.

We know she was a very spiritual women and that she had relatives in esteemed religious positions. One John "the babtizer", a relative, was sort of a thorn in the church authority of his day. John's mother and father ( a rabbi) were relatives. Mary was surounded by the faithful, she was simple, as not blemished by the trappings of religion. Her faith was virginal as in Eve's before the fall, perhaps. She said "Yes" and was not affraid. The concept of loss of innocence losses its sting with Mary. She remains a virgin, as she gave her all to God.

We make judgements when we speak of virginity, because we are of the world. Mary's birth to Jesus was not of this world. Mary's faith is an excellent example of what our faith can be.


----------



## Eshad (May 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Was Jesus a virgin?
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



Yes - No where have I ever read that Jesus was married.  But the Bible does say that Jesus was sinless in several places, I believe.  To me, that means he was a virgin, because if He wasn't, and was not married, that would have been a sin.


----------



## Hunting Teacher (May 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Was Mary forever virgin?
> Did Jesus have siblings?
> 
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



No.
Yes, James for sure.

As far as Jesus being a virgin, I think you must be going somewhere with this because I have seen enough of your posts to be convinced that you *know* he was.
Teach


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2005)

No, Mary was not a virgin forever.    I've always wondered why Joseph would be condemned to "go without" while they were married anyway!!!???   LOL    Plus, the bible states that Mary didn't "know" Joseph until after she bore Jesus.


I saw a show about Jesus the other day, I think on the history channel, and this guy was debating the 'Jesus siblings' issue.   He stated that in the greek there are seperate words for 'cousins' and 'brothers/sisters'.     He also stated that the main reason for twisting those scriptures to possibly mean 'cousins' was to carry on the tradition of Mary being a virgin her whole life.    Can't have her being a virgin if Jesus had brothers/sisters.    

Still, why would God keep a married couple from enjoying sex?     

Bandy


----------



## Arrowslinger (May 3, 2005)

1. Yes Mary the mother of God was a virgin. 
2. No Jesus had no biological siblings.
3. Are you serious? of course Jesus was a virgin.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 3, 2005)

I agree with what has been said.  Most assuredly, Mary did not remain a virgin.


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

No, Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born. James the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem was his half brother (and who wrote an awesome book in the New Testament, I might add). Half-brother because Joseph was his father and not God.

I also agree that Jesus was a virgin, because for him to have had sex outside of marriage would have been fornication which he himself taught was a sin.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2005)

Would it be a sin for a catholic (or someone else with similar beliefs) to say that Mary was not a virgin after she had Jesus?   Is the belief that she remained a virgin that critical?    Does salvation rest in our opinion of Mary?

Bandy


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

Teach,
I'm not 'going anywhere' they are real questions.  The more I research, the more I'm intirgued by how different conclusions people come to about basic aspects of Jesus and his life (and of course many other aspects of the bible).  I'm just curious how diverse, this seemingly homogenous group might be in their thoughts.  
Obviously Catholics (I am one) subscribe to the belief that Mary was forever Virgin.  Bandy, no I don't believe that is  a 'sin', regardless, it's obviously not critical to salvation.  As we both know, there is ONE thing critical to salvation.  
Clearly several believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were 'more than friends'.   Some will also suggest some things about Jesus I can't/won't even type here based on biblical syntax.  
Not sure how relevant the answers are but they are interesting (at least to me) nonetheless.  
Pretty basic questions about Jesus' family.   Not so basic answers perhaps...
Thanks for current and future replies! 
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2005)

Phil,

I'm glad  to see that you are not making a big issue out of the Virgin Mary response.    Romans 10:9 explains salvation alone...    "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved!"     Man, I love that verse!!!!!!           Looks like God has made it easy for us, no matter what we think of Mary...

Bandy


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> Phil,
> I'm glad  to see that you are not making a big issue out of the Virgin Mary response.


Bandy,
Yes, I'm Catholic, but I'm Christian first and foremost.   The Lord has given me (and continues to give me) what I need to know for sure and the rest is just interesting.  
If we're all driving down the same road to the same destination, I try not to get overly concerned about what type vehicle.   Though again, I may find it interesting.    
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

Phil,

Laying aside the whole Co-Redemptrix (sp?) thing with Mary and her virginity, how does a Catholic account for James? Is he or is he not the half-brother of Jesus?


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Bandy,
> Yes, I'm Catholic, but I'm Christian first and foremost.   The Lord has given me (and continues to give me) what I need to know for sure and the rest is just interesting.
> If we're all driving down the same road to the same destination, I try not to get overly concerned about what type vehicle.   Though again, I may find it interesting.
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



I agree as well. Too many people get hung up on the religion aspect and fail to focus on the relationship aspect.

I said in the other thread and continue to believe that there are going to be many people in heaven in spite of their religion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2005)

I thought the 'co-redemptrix' thing didn't go through????    I had heard at one time that some catholics were pushing for Mary to be made 'co-redemptrix'...equal with Christ, but I didn't think it made it that far.    Did I miss some earlier discussion on this or something?    

Bandy


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

PW,
I guess I'm not the person to ask.  I've never heard of the concept of 'co-redemptrix'.  It sounds.... well, nevermind, I don't subscribe if it does exist.  
Regarding James, I've actually never heard it discussed but obviously it has been.  I'm assuming he is not recognized as a biological brother of Jesus, and it's likely explained by symantics.  But I'm guessing and of course  could be wrong.  Sadly, I'm not as involved with my church's study groups as I should be...   
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

*Co-redemptrix*

Like they say, EVERYTHING is on the web....  
I had not heard of this term and after reading this, I guess I know why.  Though I'll try and read it again later, on the surface, to me, it's more of a title for a relationship and a role, not a position.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
An Explanation of the Marian Coredemptrix Title

Compiled by Martin Beckman

The following is a compilation of several articles by other authors, and discussions I have had with Protestants and Catholics on this issue. Much of the information in this compilation is copied from other authors and therefore I make no claims of authorship of this information in it's entirety.This article is intended to give a brief explanation.

Newsweek ran an article in it's August 25th, 1997 issue about a movement within the Catholic Church. Millions of Catholics signed and submitted a petition to Pope John Paul II in an effort to name Mary, the Mother of our Lord, as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians. This would be the fifth and final Marian dogma. Members of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici ("The Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix") spearheaded the effort. 

Supporters include Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the late Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, OP, papal theologian emeritus; Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manila, the Philippines; Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses; over 480 bishops including 40 cardinals; prominent lay leaders and ordinary faithful from all parts of the world. Hardly a fringe group!

Here's a short description from the petition submitted to the Pope:

When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10). 

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

Mary's role was unique. If she had said 'no' to Gabriel ... to God, would we have a Savior, would we have our true Redeemer ... our Lord .... the Messiah? Mary played a definite role in our salvation. But back to the original statement ... that role is entirely dependent and subordinate on Jesus. 

Mary is called to give her free and full consent to conceive this child. She is not merely a passive recipient of the message, but she was given an active role, and heaven awaited her free choice. It is precisely by her free consent to collaborate in God's saving plan that she becomes the Coredemptrix. The prophecy of Simeon to Mary, "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:25), affirms Mary's unique participation in the work of redemption, as it warns her that she will undergo an unspeakable pain that will pierce her soul, for the salvation of mankind. John 19:25 tells us of Jesus' Mother at the very foot of the cross, persevering with her Son in his worst hour of agony, and therein suffering the death of her Son.

Thus in her own suffering too, the Mother of the Redeemer participates in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul tells us we are to make up what is lacking in the sacrifice of Jesus (Col 1:24): "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,"

Paul is making a very similar statement here also. By his sufferings he is completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the church and us. This is a role we all can partake .... but this role is dependent on Christ and subordinate to Christ.

That is all that statement about Mary is saying. Mary had a role, a contribution in filling what was lacking in us, the Church. It's a very biblical statement.

Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is "participation" in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title "Coredemptrix" never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary's unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. "Coredemptrix" is a Latin word; the prefix "co" in the title, "Coredemptrix," derives from the Latin word "cum," which means "with," not "equal to." Mary's sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will. Similarly, as Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not "rival" Christ's mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite "reservoir" of all grace, which is distributed to us through Mary .... as she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators. 

Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers, no additional mediators! Clear enough?

But what about our role in bringing people to Christ, preaching the Gospel, as teachers, pointing people to Christ .... and so on? We can be mediators in that fashion. Surely you do not disagree that faith comes from (by grace) from receiving the gospel message. 

This is not saying we are mediators between Jesus and God for mankind ... but we can have a subordinate & dependent role.

This isn't adding to Jesus' mediatorship, not a seperate channel, not an end-run, or anything that takes away from His role.


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> I thought the 'co-redemptrix' thing didn't go through????    I had heard at one time that some catholics were pushing for Mary to be made 'co-redemptrix'...equal with Christ, but I didn't think it made it that far.    Did I miss some earlier discussion on this or something?
> 
> Bandy



I have been following some threads on another forum on this issue with a little interest and I think you are right that it hasn't been fully sanctioned. It's known as the 5th Marian Dogma I believe and is waiting Papal definition.

Phil,
Co-Redemptrix elevates Mary to an almost equal footing with Jesus in the role of our Salvation. Because she said "yes" to the angel Gabriel, she is given a status similar to his in saving us.


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

Phil, you found it before I could post. Man you use the internet too much.

I personally don't like the prominence that the RCC puts on Mary and is one of the reasons I am no Baptist.


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> Phil,
> Co-Redemptrix elevates Mary to an almost equal footing with Jesus in the role of our Salvation. Because she said "yes" to the angel Gabriel, she is given a status similar to his in saving us.


PW,
Did you read the attached?  From the posted info, I don't think it could have been anymore clear that that is NOT the case.  He almost went overboard making that point.  
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 3, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> I personally don't like the prominence that the RCC puts on Mary and is one of the reasons I am no Baptist.


I think there's a type-o in there?  I think you meant to say you are NOT Catholic or did you mean to say you DO like the prominence of Mary?    
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I think there's a type-o in there?  I think you meant to say you are NOT Catholic or did you mean to say you DO like the prominence of Mary?
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



Sorry. NOW Baptist.


----------



## PWalls (May 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> PW,
> Did you read the attached?  From the posted info, I don't think it could have been anymore clear that that is NOT the case.  He almost went overboard making that point.
> Hunt/fish safely,
> Phil



I don't agree. He says that she participated in our salvation because she suffered at the cross (by watching her son die obviously) and that by saying yes to Gabriel she brought the Savior into the world.

I don't have a problem with any of that in that she exercised her free will and was glorified by God because of it.

However, it seems that prominence is put too much on that and is elevating her above that. Clearly scripture says that there is only one name by which we are saved and only one name that intervenes on our behalf with the Father.

I especially didn't like where he said that Heaven was waiting on Mary for her free choice and questions whether or not we would have a Savior if she had said no. God's perfect plan would have taken into account her free will choice and we would have had a savior with or without Mary. He says that Mary played a definate role in our salvation. Does that mean when I go and witness to someone and lead them in a prayer to accept Christ that I played a role in their salvation and should be a Co-Redemptrix also?

Anyway, sorry about the hijack. What was the original topic again?


----------



## redwards (May 3, 2005)

#1 - NO, not forever, but YES when our Lord was concieved of the Holy Spirit of God.
#2 - YES, half brothers...and sisters according to Mark 6.

Quoted from: Mark 6:1-4





> 1  And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples followed him.
> 
> 2  And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
> 
> ...



But the most important thing is that of our relationship with the Lord.

I am assured that Jesus himself was virgin, because God's own Word proclaims him blameless.  To have been otherwise would have been contradictory to His own teaching.
He alone is Worthy to be called Savior and Lord.


----------



## Hunting Teacher (May 4, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Teach,
> I'm not 'going anywhere' they are real questions.
> Hey Phil,
> Sorry if I sounded accusatory. That was certainly not my intent. I know you're a deep thinker on spiritual issues and thought you were preparing to make a point.
> ...


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 4, 2005)

Hunting Teacher said:
			
		

> GeauxLSU said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 4, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> I don't agree. He says that she participated in our salvation because she suffered at the cross (by watching her son die obviously) and that by saying yes to Gabriel she brought the Savior into the world.
> 
> I don't have a problem with any of that in that she exercised her free will and was glorified by God because of it.
> 
> ...


PW,
Does the end not answer your above questions? 





> Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers, no additional mediators! Clear enough?
> 
> But what about our role in bringing people to Christ, preaching the Gospel, as teachers, pointing people to Christ .... and so on? We can be mediators in that fashion. Surely you do not disagree that faith comes from (by grace) from receiving the gospel message.
> 
> ...


He says ad nauseum in that passage that her role was unique to humanity but in NO WAY equal to Christ.  It is a fact Mary was chosen.  It is a fact she WILLINGLY accepted her role.  Though an opinion, I presume it to be fact she suffered during Christ's, her SON'S, crucifixtion like no other pure human.   She had a relationship with Christ the man, and as far as I know, Christ the Lord, that I will never have.  For that reason, I do hold her in special regard, but NO, she is not diety.  I don't know anyone who thinks she is.  
This could go off on the tangent of whether or not people believe in the possibility of intercession, but I suppose that's another thread....   
It appears the consensus is that Mary is NOT forever virgin and that Jesus DID have siblings.  If that is the case, then there are humans walking the planet today in the direct blood line of Jesus Christ.  Interesting....
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 4, 2005)

I'd say there are humans with the same Mitochondrial DNA as Jesus!!!!!   LOL   

Phil, do you get all worked up over all the stained glass and doughnuts with Mary's image on them>???     LOL     

Just kiddin...     

Bandy


----------



## GeauxLSU (May 4, 2005)

BANDERSNATCH said:
			
		

> I'd say there are humans with the same Mitochondrial DNA as Jesus!!!!!   LOL
> 
> Phil, do you get all worked up over all the stained glass and doughnuts with Mary's image on them>???     LOL
> 
> ...


I had a potato chip once that looked like Jimmy Durante.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil


----------



## PWalls (May 4, 2005)

Yes, following that logic, there are humans with DNA (I can't even pronounce the word Bandy used) of Mary.

Of course, I also believe that we all are descendants of Adam and Eve as well and would have some of that DNA.


----------

