Mary's appearence at fatima

[stevehut]

Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Is this in the Bible somewhere?

[ServingHim]

Well, the Bible does say that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus, apparently by the traditional means. 

where does the Bible specifically say that Mary and Joseph had other children together?

[Guest LadyC]

scripture NAMES her other sons, and also refers to her daughters. and all the arguing about 'well those weren't meant as literal sons and daughter' and 'oh those were some other mary's children' do NOT line up with scripture.

[Guest LadyC]

man this conversation sure got off track!! can we get back to discussing the "appearances" and save the 'mary was a virgin til she died' nonsense for (yet) another thread?

[ServingHim]

scripture NAMES her other sons, and also refers to her daughters.

thank you for clarifying...would you mind refering to which scriptures point this fact out...as to her actual daughters, AND her actual sons, besides Jesus? If you want to start a new thread, that would be great...otherwise, just here would be great.

[ServingHim]

'mary was a virgin til she died' nonsense for (yet) another thread?

I'd love to hear why it's nonsense...if you'd like to start a new thread.

Oh, by the way, did you know that Martin Luther believed that Mary was a virgin til she died...apparently HE didn't think it was nonsense.

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

Apparently John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli shared Martin Luther's same view on Mary and her ever-virgin state.

Just some research I've done on the subject because I used to feel the same way as you...

Edited July 19, 2004 by ServingHim

[Guest LadyC]

servinghim, if you're really interested in hearing why it's nonsense, may i recommend you run a search on the forums for 'perpetual virgin' ? i really have no desire to try and explain what SCRIPTURE makes VERY clear to someone who has absolutely no intention of hearing the truth.

no offense, really... but i'm all too familiar with the line 'i'd really like to know' and how frequently it is used by those who really don't want to know.

in any case, i think this thread, and the person who started it, deserve to be kept on topic.

[ServingHim]

aren't you a little testy :x:

[ServingHim]

servinghim, if you're really interested in hearing why it's nonsense, may i recommend you run a search on the forums for 'perpetual virgin' ? i really have no desire to try and explain what SCRIPTURE makes VERY clear to someone who has absolutely no intention of hearing the truth.

first of all, LadyC, you have NO idea who I am or what I am about. You so QUICKLY judge me as 'unworthy' and 'discardable' because I ask questions that you apparently don't have the time to share YOUR insights. In addition you make unwarranted assaults that I am NOT interested in finding truth. Is THIS how Jesus would have spoken to someone desiring to know more? or honestly asking questions?

You seem a bit high and mighty, and since WHEN did ANY forum have ALL TRUTH?

[Guest LadyC]

my apologies for coming across high and mighty. i do not think you're discardable or unworthy at all, and never meant to imply that. the conversation, however, is discardable as far as i'm concerned. as i said, it's been covered countless times on these boards and it's as simple as running a search to find the conversations and read through them. you'll find that i've engaged in these conversations, as have many others here, and the information provided is biblically sound.

as for why i believe you aren't interested in shaking the belief you have that she was a perpetual virgin, your own defense of your belief that you've made in posts in this thread made that quite evident.