Your interpretation is in error. Although the word in Greek means conjugal cohabitation, it does not in any way indicate that Mary and Joseph ever engaged in mundane sexual intercourse, especially in view of the fact that Mary bore God Incarnate in her womb. Any act of sexual intercourse in such an event would constitute profanation and blasphemy.

It is for this reason that Mary is referred to by the earliest Christians as the Living Ark of the Covenant. Recall how in the Old Testament, one of the men assigned to escort the Ark of the Covenant simply reached out to steady it for fear of its falling to the ground, and was struck DEAD for his act. Impregnating Mary after she had born the Son of the Living God in her womb would be akin to spraying the Ark of the Covenant with male seed. Unthinkable!

Those who wish to read the Bible in a certain light unfavourable toward the Mother of Jesus, dishonour her and God alike. Mary's womb, by virtue of her bearing God Incarnate, must be considered sacrosanct.

Your view reduces Jesus Christ to the level of a mundane individual. It is inconceivable to imagine Jesus with siblings. It detracts from the divine majesty of His person. Imagine his siblings fighting with Jesus - pulling his hair, teasing him, biting him, as children often do. Imagine the children or Jesus shouting, "Tell them to stop picking on me!" Jesus had NO siblings. Mary bore no other children beside Jesus. If she had, Jesus would not have entrusted the care of his Mother to St. John on the day of his crucifixion.

It was a Jewish custom for the next of kin to care for the biological mother. If any other sons beside Jesus existed, Mary would have been entrusted to their care, but Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to St. John, and this confirms the fact that Mary bore no other children during her lifetime save for Jesus, who, as the Bible informs us, is the "ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God."

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was virgin born and God incarnate. This is not the argument. The Bible does not teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That is a pagan, Babylonian belief with Nimrod being reincarnated as Tammuz and being born to Semiramis who was the eternal virgin "queen of heaven."

debunks said:
"Your interpretation is in error. Although the word in Greek means conjugal cohabitation, it does not in any way indicate that Mary and Joseph ever engaged in mundane sexual intercourse, especially in view of the fact that Mary bore God Incarnate in her womb. Any act of sexual intercourse in such an event would constitute profanation and blasphemy."

Where is your scripture for this argument? It sounds as if you are arguing from some man-made religious tradition or your own personal philosophy (or just repeating something that you have been taught). I suggest you examine what you have been taught in light of the Bible. Be like the Bereans who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" in Acts 17:11. You cannot sustain the argument from the Bible that Mary was a perpetual virgin without grossly ignoring (or conveniently correcting) plain, simple scripture.

Also, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You admit that "know" means to have sex but then say that it does not mean this in Joseph and Mary's case? Why? Because that would contradict your extra-biblical, unbiblical belief? In Luke 1:34, Mary asked Gabriel " How shall this be, seeing I KNOW not a man?" Her virginity was based on her not KNOWING a man. But the Bible says later that she and Joseph did KNOW each other. You did not really answer (or give the "correct" interpretation) to the Bible verses submitted. You discredit yourself in so many ways when you hold to a teaching that cannot be backed up with scripture. You seem to value your religious tradition moreso than the word of God. Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

debunks said:
"It is for this reason that Mary is referred to by the earliest Christians as the Living Ark of the Covenant. Recall how in the Old Testament, one of the men assigned to escort the Ark of the Covenant simply reached out to steady it for fear of its falling to the ground, and was struck DEAD for his act. Impregnating Mary after she had born the Son of the Living God in her womb would be akin to spraying the Ark of the Covenant with male seed. Unthinkable!"

Again, where is your scripture for any of this? Mary is nowhere referred to as this in the Bible. In fact, she really is not that prominent of a character after Jesus' ascension. According to the Bible, Mary and Joseph did have sex (Matthew 1:18, 1:20, 13:55-56, Mark 6:3). Sex is not a sin inside of marriage. Mary was a normal human being (as was Joseph) with normal needs and desires.

debunks said:
"Those who wish to read the Bible in a certain light unfavourable toward the Mother of Jesus, dishonour her and God alike. Mary's womb, by virtue of her bearing God Incarnate, must be considered sacrosanct."

Again, where is your scripture for this? I read the Bible as it is written - in its context and comparing scripture with scripture. If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense. The Bible is very favorable towards Mary. Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." It just does not teach that she was a perpetual virgin. It teaches she had sex with Joseph and had more children. They would have been Jesus' half-brothers and half-sisters.

debunks said:
"Your view reduces Jesus Christ to the level of a mundane individual. It is inconceivable to imagine Jesus with siblings. It detracts from the divine majesty of His person. Imagine his siblings fighting with Jesus - pulling his hair, teasing him, biting him, as children often do. Imagine the children or Jesus shouting, "Tell them to stop picking on me!" Jesus had NO siblings. Mary bore no other children beside Jesus. If she had, Jesus would not have entrusted the care of his Mother to St. John on the day of his crucifixion."

What Mary did after Jesus' birth would have no effect on Jesus or who he was. Mary could have become a prostitute and it would not have mattered (She didn't. She became a believer.). The fact that you do not want Jesus to have siblings does not matter. What matters is what the Bible says. Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters. Jesus was obviously the oldest but we are not told the age gaps between them. Also, apparently, they did not become believers until after his resurrection/ascension. Jesus left John in charge of his mother because (1) Joseph was dead and (2) Mary's other children were not believers yet.

debunks wrote:
"It was a Jewish custom for the next of kin to care for the biological mother. If any other sons beside Jesus existed, Mary would have been entrusted to their care, but Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to St. John, and this confirms the fact that Mary bore no other children during her lifetime save for Jesus, who, as the Bible informs us, is the "ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God."

Yes, Jesus certainly was the only-begotten son of God, but he was not the only son of Mary. She had 4 other sons and at least 2 daughters. Unless you can quote scripture (and not recite some religious philosophy) to back up your belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin, please do not make this argument. You only look silly. Please take a serious look at why you believe what you believe. Is it simply what you have been taught or have you examined what you believe in light of the Bible?

Regardless of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not, what matters is that you know without a doubt that when you die you will spend eternity in heaven. You have to trust in Jesus Christ alone and his shed blood apart from any good religious deeds. Visit http://www.chick.com/information/general/salvation.asp or http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp to read more.

Mr. Hoffman argues with the Father and Cdog as to whether Mary, Mother of Jesus, had other children after Jesus. Scripture is quoted but with explanations! You know, like whether cousins meant the same thing as brothers and sisters in the original language.
It would not be the first time the Roman Catholic Church has had to change what they have taught for centuries due to seeing the light.
The facts are, it is not very important!
Anyone who thinks that the average christian, or even clergy, can perfectly interpret and preach the entire Bible, New or Old, is fooling themself. If you really need to know these things, you will have to decide for yourself, or leave it up to judgement.

Really? Dollar wrote: "It would not be the first time the Roman Catholic Church has had to change what they have taught for centuries due to seeing the light."
Please provide an example. The Church has NEVER changed a solemn teaching on faith and morals in 2000 years. Teaching on devotion, practice, and non-dogmatic or non-doctrinal teachings have and can change, but not issues like Mary's perpetual virginity.
Exactly! No one person can perfectly interpret scripture, yet you say to leave it up to each person.... A bit of a contradiction, yet one which has indeed been resolved by the Catholic Church. Its teaching authority is called the Magisterium, which is the combined agreement of bishops, popes, and theologians over the centuries. The Magisterium is limited to commenting on those issues which are knowable and significant. So, the Magisterium isn't used to provide definitive teachings on each bible verse, but it is used to provide the definitive statement on key issues. The Magisterium has never been corrected or changed in 2000 years. This is one of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church, that fact that "the gates of hell had not prevailed against it". Even if individuals fail and certain teachings change, the Church has held firm on key issues of faith and morals.

It is necessary to explain Scripture. The process of explanation is called 'exegesis.' If Scriptures is not properly explained or understood, it inevitably leads to numerous conflicting interpretations and all cannot be true. Thus, there is only ONE true explanation for any given citation from Scripture.

You make a blanket accusation against the Catholic Church without posting any evidence in substantiation. The issue here is one of GRAMMAR. Either the argument re close relatives is cogent or it isn't.

what makes your interpretation more valid then anyone else's?

I yam what I yam...Popeye