Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gospel of John shows our Lord to be Mary's only child
#1
Dear family in our Maran Alaha and Mahydoneh Yashua,Berek Alaha! I'm writing to point something out in the Holy Goepel of St.John which shows St.Mary to have remained a virgin and that she had no other children.In the Orthodox church,the moast ancient and true Christian church together with the Church of the East and the Eastern Rite Catholic churches,we are taught that the brothers and sisters listed of our Mari in the gospels are actually children of St.Joseph from his previous marriage and that he was an aged widower when the virgin was intrusted to his care.When our Lord was on the cross he bequeathed the care of his mother St.Mary to St.John which he wouldnt have done had she had other children as the Jewish religion and culture of the time ensured that ones children would take care of them once they became older and needed the care.This can be plainly read in St.John;Chpt 19;25-27.I just think it important as the COE,the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches and the Eastern and Latin Rite churches all teach this important fact.Thank you for reading.In Yashua,Deacon Michael.
Reply
#2
berekaloho Wrote:Dear family in our Maran Alaha and Mahydoneh Yashua,Berek Alaha! I'm writing to point something out in the Holy Goepel of St.John which shows St.Mary to have remained a virgin and that she had no other children.In the Orthodox church,the moast ancient and true Christian church together with the Church of the East and the Eastern Rite Catholic churches,we are taught that the brothers and sisters listed of our Mari in the gospels are actually children of St.Joseph from his previous marriage and that he was an aged widower when the virgin was intrusted to his care.When our Lord was on the cross he bequeathed the care of his mother St.Mary to St.John which he wouldnt have done had she had other children as the Jewish religion and culture of the time ensured that ones children would take care of them once they became older and needed the care.This can be plainly read in St.John;Chpt 19;25-27.I just think it important as the COE,the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches and the Eastern and Latin Rite churches all teach this important fact.Thank you for reading.In Yashua,Deacon Michael.

Shlama Deacon Michael:
Thank you for clarifying the fact that Yeshua was the only begotten Son of Alaha as well as the only begotten son of Miriam. Indeed the New Testament scriptures support this view.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#3
Hello,
I believe Thaddeus, Joses, James the son of Khalpai, Simon are cousins of Yeshua Meshikha. From what I know of, Brother can also mean cousin in Aramaic (during the time of Yeshua Meshikha). It must be noted that Khalpai and Qalyopa are same person. According to Hegesippus, Cleopas (Qalyopa in Aramaic) was the brother of Joseph. But when the name "Khalpai" was translated into Greek, "Kh" was removed and the name became "Alphaeus" (with "us" added). Because of this, many people think Alphaeus and Cleopas are two different people.
Reply
#4
Dear berekaholo and Mr. Silver,

With all due respect, may I ask WHY it is important that Miriam be an "ever-virgin." I will admit John 19 is an interesting reference and that this is a topic I certainly haven't researched or thought about in any great depth. But I am only wondering why it is necessary to establish that she was a indeed a virgin until her death. I guess I don't see how this affects who Christ was or what he accomplished. I would appreciate any input on the topic. Thanks in advance.

Humbly,
Keith
Reply
#5
Hi Keith. Along the same line of thought, why do you suppose it was important that Miriam was a virgin prior to the Conception?
Reply
#6
Mr. Younan,
Wow. Excellent question, one I also haven't put much thought into before.......can I have some time to think about that? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
My first reaction is to say that Mary needed to be a virgin otherwise one could claim that Yeshua came through a normal 2 human parent birth and thereby deny his divinity. Also, of course, it was a fulfillment of prophesy that He would be born of a virgin. But once that has been established (his birth through a virgin) I'm not sure if I understand why it is then necessary that she remain in that state forever. (Again, I'm not denying it, only trying to understand it.) Thanks again in advance......
Keith
Reply
#7
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Keith. Along the same line of thought, why do you suppose it was important that Miriam was a virgin prior to the Conception?

It was a prophecy. The zodiac, which is in origin probably of hebrew origin, has 12x main signs + 3x12 . One of the symbols, was a virgin. So, even the zodiac prophecied this.

The Babylonian magushe (magians) knew this and they could, using the constellation and the signs, look for the Messiah. (Since the virgin was at sky at a certain point and showed a new born star)

(A very short story, which requires more explanation, I know)
Reply
#8
billman Wrote:Wow. Excellent question, one I also haven't put much thought into before.......can I have some time to think about that? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Absolutely, it's a fascinating topic....take your time.

billman Wrote:My first reaction is to say that Mary needed to be a virgin otherwise one could claim that Yeshua came through a normal 2 human parent birth and thereby deny his divinity.

Isn't that the case, regardless?

Mary being a virgin, instead of mitigating the possibility of denying the "immaculate conception", actually introduces a new avenue of attack, vis-a-vis the perceived absurdity of a virgin conceiving in the first place. I believe the requirement that she be a virgin actually makes the immaculate conception harder to defend, in that God could just as well have planned His Incarnation via an older woman who had already given birth to twelve sons. It wouldn't (seemingly) have affected who Christ was, or what He accomplished - right?

billman Wrote:Also, of course, it was a fulfillment of prophesy that He would be born of a virgin.

This is the "why" question - why? If not to deflect the charges against the immaculate conception, which came anyway in addition to the doubting of the virginity, then why must she have been a virgin according to the prophecy? It would have been just as miraculous if God were to have been incarnated in a womb used by twelve prior pregnancies, right?

billman Wrote:But once that has been established (his birth through a virgin) I'm not sure if I understand why it is then necessary that she remain in that state forever.

I don't necessarily think it was necessary in that sense, just like it wasn't necessary in that sense that she had been a virgin prior. By "that sense", I mean of course the demonstration of the miraculous. The fact that it happened that way conveys deep meaning, a very special reference back to what Paul tried to teach us about the Second Adam. It is here that your answer to both questions lies.

Mar Ephrem Wrote:The Virgin's conception teaches us that He who begot Adam without intercourse from the virgin earth, also fashioned the Second Adam without intercourse in the Virgin's womb. Whereas the First returned back into the womb of his mother, it was by means of the Second, Who did not return back into the womb of His mother, that the former who had been buried in the womb of his mother, is brought back from it.
(Mar Ephrem, "Commentary on the Diatesseron")

This is about the restoration of humanity to Paradise, Akhi (1Cor. 15:42-49.) The story of the Image of God Created, Lost and Restored.

"Today you will be with Me in paradise", Luqa 23:43.

+Shamasha
Reply
#9
It is clear that translators trouble the translation in sight of religious traditions.

It seems that only murdock did an honest translation while lamsa and etheridge made the following words very vague.

Matthew 1:18
And the birth of Jesus the Messiah was thus. While his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they had cohabited, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit

Lamsa has 'before they came together'
and etheridge has a rare english word 'before they could be consociated' which leaves the reader in question marks.

It is clear that Mary and Jawsef consumed their marriage and that eternal virginity has nothing to do with any Godly will or a prophesy which was for Maryam.
Reply
#10
distazo Wrote:It is clear that Mary and Jawsef consumed their marriage and that eternal virginity has nothing to do with any Godly will or a prophesy which was for Maryam.


Shlama Distazo:
How have you determined by scripture that it is clear that Joseph and Mary had sex at any time? It appears to me tho be a Western Protestant view that Mary and Joseph had to consumate their marriage by having sex together. I'm not a Roman Catholic, however it appears to me that the term "perpetual virgin", used by Roman Catholics is not without meit.
The Talmud may be quoted (I'll have to researchthe passage), making it a necessity for a man and his wife to have sex to consumate their joining as husband and wife but I have not found this in the TaNaKh or the New Testament. So, in my personal view it is my understanding that Miriam was a perpetual virgin, this being the gracious sacrifice that Joseph and Miryam made throughout their entire lives. This present generation doesn't appear to be able to relate to marriage that does not include cohabitation but it is really not such a difficult thing to grasp.
In reflection, if I were Joseph, to whom Alaha appeard in a dream I would be in awe as to the implications of the virginity of Miryam and the impending birth of the Son of Alaha. If the text does not specifically say that Joseph and Miryam had sex after Yeshua was born, it would be presumptuous of me to consider it as fact. Your thoughts please and those of the forum!

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#11
Stephen Silver Wrote:
distazo Wrote:It is clear that Mary and Jawsef consumed their marriage and that eternal virginity has nothing to do with any Godly will or a prophesy which was for Maryam.


Shlama Distazo:
How have you determined by scripture that it is clear that Joseph and Mary had sex at any time? It appears to me tho be a Western Protestant view that Mary and Joseph had to consumate their marriage by having sex together. I'm not a Roman Catholic, however it appears to me that the term "perpetual virgin", used by Roman Catholics is not without meit.
The Talmud may be quoted (I'll have to researchthe passage), making it a necessity for a man and his wife to have sex to consumate their joining as husband and wife but I have not found this in the TaNaKh or the New Testament. So, in my personal view it is my understanding that Miriam was a perpetual virgin, this being the gracious sacrifice that Joseph and Miryam made throughout their entire lives. This present generation doesn't appear to be able to relate to marriage that does not include cohabitation but it is really not such a difficult thing to grasp.
In reflection, if I were Joseph, to whom Alaha appeard in a dream I would be in awe as to the implications of the virginity of Miryam and the impending birth of the Son of Alaha. If the text does not specifically say that Joseph and Miryam had sex after Yeshua was born, it would be presumptuous of me to consider it as fact. Your thoughts please and those of the forum!

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->


Shlama akhi,



while i have no issue at all with the thought that Maryam never had any other children (Messiah's "giving" her to Yuwkhanan at the cross makes sense this way), it seems to me that she at least had relations with Yawseph AFTER the birth of Yeshu'a.

i get this from Matt. 1:25.

is there a different way that the CoE approaches the term "knew" - KHAKMAH? can it be rightly understood without the sexual meaning? if so, how is that done?

i'm not against her remaining a virgin by any means, but i 'm just not seeing it explicitly stated as such by the NT, and the above passage makes me think otherwise very strongly. any clarification would be helpful, though!



Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#12
Burning one Wrote:
Stephen Silver Wrote:
distazo Wrote:It is clear that Mary and Jawsef consumed their marriage and that eternal virginity has nothing to do with any Godly will or a prophesy which was for Maryam.


Shlama akhi,
while i have no issue at all with the thought that Maryam never had any other children (Messiah's "giving" her to Yuwkhanan at the cross makes sense this way), it seems to me that she at least had relations with Yawseph AFTER the birth of Yeshu'a.

i get this from Matt. 1:25.

is there a different way that the CoE approaches the term "knew" - KHAKMAH? can it be rightly understood without the sexual meaning? if so, how is that done?

i'm not against her remaining a virgin by any means, but i 'm just not seeing it explicitly stated as such by the NT, and the above passage makes me think otherwise very strongly. any clarification would be helpful, though!



Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Shlama Akhi Jeremy:
The phrase of Matthew 1:25 can read two ways creating two different contexts. The word "until" is not always followed by the intended act. In this case it is sexual intercourse. The verse can use the event of the virgin birth as a point up until which Joseph had no sex with Maryam but without a "disclaimer", it is not at all certain that directly following the virgin birth that Miryam and Joseph consumated their marriage with the sex act. The belief of "perpetual virgin" in the case of Miryam is very compelling indeed.
If the verse read, "they had sex after Yeshua was born", it would leave no wriggle room, but that's not the reading. The "until" can actually not imply the sexual consumation, only that they did not have sex before Yeshua was born. Of this we have many corresponding textual affirmations. We have no textual verifications to support the other way in which "until" is used to imply that they had sex after Yeshua was born.
The important thing here is the verification of "two or three witnesses. It is not good hermeneutics to use only one verse to prove an event took place. Here we have one verse with a double meaning in which context is key. This verse must be read in light of all verses which speak of the virgin birth. This is my personal opinion after threading all of the verses together rather than isolating one verse, no matter how compelling it may appear.
Perhaps there is another instance of the use of "until" in another passage of the TaNaKh or the New Testament which we are not aware of. This requires a search, and searches take time. Nevertheless, I will try to find another example of the hermeneutic use of until, which demonstrates the clarity of my opinion.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver,
Dukhrana Biblical Research,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#13
Shlama akhi Stephen,


i actually hadn't considered the use of "until" in that manner here. it feels a bit strained, but i admittedly can see that as a valid interpretation of the passage. thank you for your explanation. do you know if this is how the CoE handles the passage?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#14
2Samuel 6:23

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death". Obviously she didn't have any afterwards. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Deut. 34:6, "no one knows the location where Moses was buried until this day.". We still don't, even after that day.

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Paul Younan Wrote:2Samuel 6:23

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death". Obviously she didn't have any afterwards. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Deut. 34:6, "no one knows the location where Moses was buried until this day.". We still don't, even after that day.

+Shamasha


Shlama, akhi Paul,


regarding the first example, there may be a problem: elsewhere (don't have the immediate reference) the Hebrew says she DID have children (one of the few proposed "contradictions" in the TN"K). tho i haven't checked to see the Peshitta AN"K's reading on that one...

other than that, you make a good point with the Deut. example. this is more palatable than at first thought! hmmm...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)