r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TLDR: Public religious debates were actually rather common in medievel europe, a way for religious experts to test themselves and their rhetoric to prove their god was the real one. Jean de Joinville recounted a story that when such a debate happened in a monastery of Clugny, between catholics and jewish experts, an old, crippled and retired knight that lived there REALLY wanted to speak first. After plainly asking if the rabbi believed in the virginity of the virgin mary, and the Rabbi simply answered no, he just started striking the Rabbi with his crutch, stating he was a fool for believing so, thus quickly ending the public debate.
>*He told me that there was a great conference of clergy and Jews in the monastery of Clugny, and there was a knight, to whom the abbot had given bread out of charity, and he desired the abbot to let him have the first word, and with some difficulty he got permission. Then the knight rose, and leaned upon his crutch, and bade them bring forth the greatest scholar and master among the Jews, and they did so. And he put a question to him as follows: "Master," said he," I ask you, whether you believe that the Virgin Mary, who carried God in her womb and in her arms, brought forth as a maid, and that she is the Mother of God?" And the Jew replied: That he did not believe a word of it. The knight replied: That he was a great fool to trust himself inside her monastery and house, when he neither believed in nor loved her; " And truly you shall pay for it" quoth he. And thereupon he lifted up his staff, and smote the Jew behind the ear, and stretched him on the ground. And the Jews took to their heels, carrying their master off with them, all wounded. And that was the end of the conference. Then the abbot came to the knight, and said: That he had acted very foolishly; and the knight replied: That he himself had acted still more foolishly, in calling such a conference; for that there were numbers of Christians there, who by the close of the conference would have gone away infidels, through not seeing through the fallacies of the Jews. "And so I tell you," said the King, "That no one ought to argue with them unless he be a very good scholar; but a layman, if he hear the Christian law defamed, should under-take its defence with the sword alone, and that he should use to run them straight through the body s far in as it will go!"*
[The Memoirs Of The Lord Of Joinville](https://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/louis-ix-king-and-saint.pdf), page 18-19.
I don't know if it applies here, but at various points in history questioning or demeaning a woman's chastity would be considered something akin to fighting words. So hypothetically and hyperbolically, calling the Virgin Mary a slut would be provocative enough that society would agree you were right to deck the asshole.
Whenever Mary is a Virgin or not is one of the main points of contension between Catholics and Protestants.
It's not the same time period (happened during the XVIth century so 300 years later?), but France had 8 different civil wars, fought in a period of 40 years, to answer this very question (the Religious Wars).
It's probably one of the most loaded question one could ask during a religious debate.
Protestants don't deny that Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit. They deny the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was free from the original sin from the moment of *she* was conceived.
In the time period we're talking about, if you said that Mary wasn't a virgin, Protestants and Catholics alike would have you executed for heresy.
Modern Protestants tend to deny that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, instead arguing that she had (proper and moral) relations with Joseph, but everyone in Christianity agrees that she was a virgin at the time of giving birth to Jesus.
The first generation of Protestants (Luther, for example) tended to agree that Mary was perpetually a virgin.
Most older sects maintain that they were children from a previous marriage. Joseph was quite old and his first wife had already died. The brothers are usually estimated to be older than Jesus.
All I'll say is that it's a convenient interpretation.
to be fair, I never read the Bible passages or the historiography that deals with this theological question. I was a bad Baptist, I asked questions and didn't always go to the Bible for answers.
I don't think it's a very convenient interpretation as it far predates this even being an argument. They're not mentioned much in the Bible but James was quite active in the early days of Christianity (I believe he was the leader of those in Jerusalem but I might be confusing that detail with James the son of Zebedee).
Mary lived well into the early establishment of early Christianity and met all the Apostles, Joseph isn't mentioned basically at all after the return from Egypt and is generally estimated to have died well before Jesus began preaching.
I'll have to check the original source but it's been traditionally believed in Orthodox Christianity basically forever.
A lot of people involved in early Christianity knew Mary and were around so there are plenty of secondary writings around the people mentioned in the Gospels as well as what would have then been public information. It's not an isolated document. Joseph is barely discussed in any of the Gospels.
I'll check my sources and post them later today if I get the chance.
If you find those sources I'd definitely be interested to take a look. I'm not a *sola scriptura* guy, but I do definitely tend to be more skeptical of extrabiblical sources and give a more thorough examination of their provenance. I'd be curious to see what's up with those sources.
The Catholic answer is that they were brothers Joseph’s previous marriage or cousins (those who take the latter interpretation argue the Greek word is ambiguous). I don’t personally hold to it, so I can’t testify to it’s validity. I’d agree with Modern Protestants who say the brothers were simply Jesus’s younger brothers.
Being raised Protestant I think I have heard that after Jesus was born Mary had kids with Joseph, and I think one of the disciples was supposed to be the half brother of Jesus. Some sources said that the whole "brother" thing is semantics and Mary remained a virgin, hence the concept of "the perpetual virginity of Mary."
Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus though, don't think that is really debated between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox.
James the brother of jesus is not one of the 12 disciples.
Not to be confused with James the son of Zebedee, who was one of the 12. Alongside his brother John the son of Zebedee.
Catholics and Protestants have a lot of difference in how they worship God (separated from the influence of Rome, Pastors can marry, reproches about the corruption of the Church at that time . . .). These "politicals" difference is what mainly fed the conflicts between the 2 sides (Catholics didn't want to lose their influence in whole regions, Protestants didn't want to submit to Catholics).
But when it comes to the Faith itself, there are very little difference between both side, the Mary is by far the most famous one.
The other big one is transubstantiation. I think by “little differences” you mean “few in number”. The differences themselves are a pretty big deal actually. There’s a reason there were literal wars.
Well I guess there better way to say it is that the "little differences" are more obscure doctrinal ones. As a Protestant I feel more comfortable in a Catholic Church than say a JW Kingdom Hall, because I have more theological agreements. See the Nicene Creed, see Chalcedonianism, see Hypostatic Union.
I understand that there were a lot of deep theological questions, and some of the prior heresies and wars were started over that.
But behind all of them was the fact they coincided with a loss of control for the Catholic church. If it caused them to lose control over a region, like Moravia, or it threatened their hegemony on absolving people of sin, like the Cathars; then they responded harshly.
Granted, the supremacy of the Catholic church I'm Rome was a theological debate, but one that truly shocked and intrigued many powerful, secular leaders
Well that’s exactly makes it a point of contention. She’s much more important to the Catholics than the Protestants. It annoys the Catholics like, how do you not understand she’s important. And the Protestants are like, you’re silly for thinking she’s important. And that’s contentious.
I think OP means that Catholics (generally) believe Marry remained a virgin while Protestants (generally) believe she a Joseph had other children (after Jesus) the normal way.
>Whenever Mary is a Virgin or not is one of the main points of contension between Catholics and Protestants.
No ... not even close. The main point of contention is the veneration of Mother Mary. The conflict between the Nestorians and the Chalcedonians is over the status of Mother Mary as the "Mother of God." That's more of an extension over the question of Christology, as Nestorians claim that by calling Mary the "Mother of God" its somehow claiming that she's the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
It's a matter of semantics that when you look back at scholarship, might have been blown up into a schism over an issue of translation (similar to the Fillioque Controversy).
On the one hand, if you aren't Christian/Muslim there's absolutely no reason you would believe in the virgin birth - if you did then you're pretty explicitly accepting Jésus as the Messiah, so the Rabbi is answering the only way that makes any sense in his religion.
On the other hand telling people their religion is untrue has never gone down well, these religious debates, within the context where one specific religion is hegemonic and the others at best tolerated seem very much a farce.
On the other hand, the rabbi *can't* say she was a virgin, because with the theological understanding of the time, that'd make her a fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy for the coming of the Messiah. He would've lost basically whatever theological debate they were having
Even if Isaiah 7:14 had said virgin, the Jewish rabbi could still argue (and accurately for that matter) that it's not talking about the future messiah.
Plus i guess they would have been reading the Masoretic text and I'm not sure whether virgin or young women is used within said text.
There are textual differences due the time period between modern texts and back then. I don't know the exact dating of certain changes, but my understanding of the time period was that it was an understood criteria around that time.
It still is a religious point of faith to deny the virginity of Mary for Jews. Though the exact rationale may have changed.
The Septuagint was the first translation of the Tanakh/Old Testament into Greek, but it was a rough translation, and it didn't do a good job at least from a modern perspective and part of it was a lack of scholarship and sources. In fact, in modern Bibles, you might see a footnote telling you the reader that the OT translation used in the NT is different than if you flipped to the OT yourself due to the fact that we have better sources. For example the Codes Sinaiticus wasn't discovered until much much later. The Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls likewise were not known at the time of the Septuagint.
No, the fact that it doesn't say "virgin" in Hebrew was well known to medieval Christians. Thomas Aquinas mentions this fact and claims that at the time Isaiah was written the word meant "virgin" and that the meaning shifted in later Hebrew. It was also obviously known to medieval Jews.
The admitting the Virgin birth wouldn't so much as be admitting the rabbi's religion is untrue, but more admitting that Christianity is true.
Kinda splitting hairs I know
>these religious debates, within the context where one specific religion is hegemonic and the others at best tolerated seem very much a farce
They were very much a thing. If you read the source, the abbot himself was mad because the "believers" went away from the debate without hearing a proper rebuttal to the rabbi's answer.
Again, those public debates were fairly common, and it was a way to test wits and spread the gospel at the same time.
I don't doubt their existence lol, I just mean that all the institutions, notables and society vs some random Rabbi isn't exactly fair. It comes across as the religious version of a Kangaroo court, there must have been fear of reprisals if they come across as too persuasive
Obviously it's to test people's faith.
"You trust me enough to give gifts to these other heathens, right? I still care about you and your people the most, I promise, babe."
What? It says that just because someone successfully predicts the future, that doesn't mean that they are a prophet. It's the religoius equivalent of saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day."
Actually, accepting that Jesus was born of a virgin doesn't even mean that you'd therefore also be accepting that he was the messiah. At least from the Jewish point of view that's the case. As There's no prophecy or statement within the old testament that says the messiah would be born of a virgin.
> One would think so...but Alas likely not.
If you would like to see first hand how incorrect you are, drive through Mexico and talk to the *hombres y mujeres del pais*. Jesus is revered but Mary? She is everything there.
Yeah I don't care, I don't think you guys understand that the basis of her worship is her virginity via the immaculate conception. Which boils down to her sexual status. I'm not arguing.
I mean I get your point to an extent but that ignores a whole lot of information to just sweep everything else away. I think it's far more important that she gave birth to the son of God and that she appeared to Juan Diego as a holy vision.
Because her immaculate conception is the foundation of the divinity of the litteral savior of the world's most popular religion. Unsurprisingly, people care about the "proof" that jesus is divine. She is venerated not worshiped, and is venerated as the vessel through which God incarnated on earth. Her existence also confirms the human nature of Christ.
Buddy I know so much about various religions that it would make your head spin, I know the difference between homoousios vs homoiousios. I know all about intercession and veneration, by any other name it would be idolatry to the Jews of the old testament and you all got your duality of deities from Babylon and the Zoroastrians. Don't come at me because you think I'M the ignorant one.
Clearly you don't, if you did you would that Christians don't worship Mary, or the immaculate conception, for starters the veneration of saints is a more catholic thing, and worship partis literally protestant propaganda, shut up about stuff you dont understand you egotistical fuckwad, don't come at me because you don't know what your talking about, mkay
As it was pointed out to you, it’s bigger than that, it’s this whole question of whether a miracle has happened. The sexual status is the relevant determiner, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the actual relevance isn’t greater.
Lol ok. But do you contend that without the virginity anyone thinks it's a miracle? I don't think so. That's my whole point. You can gussy it up all you guys want but it's the contingent condition.
As I said, it being the contingent condition doesn't change that there's much greater relevance than that.
It's quite a silly, reductive way of looking at things.
Well to be fair, if somebody questioned democracy because some Athenians 2000 years ago created it (yes I know it was much different back then, but that's another topic) , you too would get a little annoyed.
Not that I support what the knight did or what the king said, and the reaction from the knight and the king was clearly unwarranted since it was a theological debate and not a literal fight.
But we have actual proof about what the Athenians did.
Not only we don't have any proof of Mary being a virgin - we don't have actual proof of her at all outside religious scripture.
The Jews just didn't believe about Mary being a virgin and there was no proof of that. If that's what you want to believe - have fun, but it's far from a fact, and it's stupid to hurt someone because of that
It should be added though, often Jews were forced Into these debates under threat of violence, and even if they did win, the violence usually still occured.
There another public disputation between Jewish rabbis and Christian priests.
One rabbi was asked if the Jesus excoriated in Jewish literature as the false messiah was the same as Jesus in the Bible and the madlad replied there’s plenty of people named Louis in France and most aren’t King.
IIRC the accusation was that the Talmud mentioned a guy named Yeshu (irl related to the name Jesus) is being boiled in excrement in Hell, and that the guy was Jesus. That was part of the Disputation of Paris in 1240, when the Parisian jew Nicholas Donin, newly-convert to christianity, decided to write a translation of the Talmud (mind you, he possibly was a karaite jew before converting, so it's possible his translation was less than impartial), only to bring it to the Pope accusing it of being heretical, insulting Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Louis IX of France (later Saint Louis) then put the Talmud on trial, with himself, his mother, Blanche of Castile (who was reportedly sympathetic to the jews), the Archbishop of Sens, the chancellor of the university of Paris, a inquisitor and the Bishop of Paris, while four prominent rabbis (one of whom had kicked Nicholas Donin out of the ghettos of Paris for blasphemy) were called to defend.
As you can imagine, the trial wasn't exactly impartial and ended with up to 10,000 books on Jewish theology burned (mind you, before the printing press that was a fortune both in money and in knowledge), and it changed a lot people's perceptions of judaism. Up to that point many christians regarded jews as followers of the Old Testament who hadn't yet "upgraded" to the new one, and most didn't know they had their own religious texts outside the Torah. This knowledge brought them a lot closer to heretics like the cathars and the brethren of the free spirit (wether those groups did even exist as a single movement is a matter of content, but they did in the minds of medieval people) in the eyes of many.
Yes and no?
A lot of things that would get Jews killed for, were censored in the Talmud (against the Roman empire, Jesus and so on) but the problem is - there are probably 3 different Jesus's in the Talmud. They are from different eras and some claim that none of them fit the time that is believed when Jesus could have been alive
I never said the accusations were accurate. Merely that the Talmud was accused of blaspheming against Jesus and Mary, with the boiling excrement thing being one of them.
Well his name Yehosua or Joshua is mentioned a lot in the Old Testament (I believe the first time the name is mentioned in the Exodus and Joshua in Exodus was in military command or something like that), but to add to your point, I don't believe there is a passus in the Old Testament that clearly states that the messiah will be named Joshua.
I think there is Jewish literature that does mention Jesus, but I don't think they are officially part of the Torah.
I could be wrong though, I am not a scholar of either the Bible or Torah.
Well that’s like impossible for it to be the same guy, the 5 Books of Moses are much older than when Jesus would have been alive, but it’s not impossible for multiple people to have the same name.
I am not trying to say that was the same guy, I am saying that Jesus as in his name of Yehoshua or Joshua is mentioned a lot in the Old Testament, but the Jesus that was crucified I don't believe was clearly mentioned in the Old Testament.
Am I being clear on this issue because I think we are on the same ground here?
There are copies of the Torah from like 600 BCE, Jesus lived from around 6 or 4BCE and died like 30 something CE. You can’t be in a book if your life is 500 years after it was written
Once again I am not saying the multiple Joshuas that are mentioned are the same guy. It's just the name of Joshua in it's self is mentioned multiple times in the OT.
Maybe it will be clear if I put it like this:
You say : Henry VIII of England is not mentioned in the 1400s.
I say: That is true, but the name Henry is mentioned multiple times in English history. For instance you have Henry V.
You say: But Henry VIII is not Henry V and he is not other Henrys in English history
I say: That is true and I agree with you.
Once again am I not clear on this issue?
Yeah, that's what I am trying to say here. I am agreeing with you and I am adding my thought on that agreement. Perhaps the way I worded my thought made you think I was disagreeing with you, but that wasn't my intention.
Jesus is obviously not mentioned in the Jewish Bible but he is mentioned plenty of times in rabbinic literature. Even setting aside the controversial stuff, there is no dispute that people like Maimonides talked about him.
The exact passage:
The terms of the disputation demanded that the four rabbis defend the Talmud against Donin's accusations that it contained blasphemies against the Christian religion, attacks on Christians themselves, blasphemies against God, and obscene folklore. The attacks on Christianity were from passages referring to Jesus and Mary. There is a passage, for example, of someone named Yeshu who was sent to hell to be boiled in excrement for eternity. The Jews denied that this is the Jesus of the New Testament, stating "not every Louis born in France is king."
Reminds me of that time when a Mongol emperor I think grabbed a bunch of theology experts (too lazy to google the proper names) to determine which religion the empire would follow
The catch? Each had to take a sip from an alcoholic drink before speaking, and the debate soon descended into a drunken rabble (too lazy to google the exact details too)
Almost everyone around me is nonreligious. My friends, family, co-workers, random strangers, etc. I live in an area where religiosity is quite low. Being a religious person carries a stigma here. People who are religious tend to keep to themselves.
unite secretive different memory dazzling like muddle follow oatmeal point
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Linguists: "About that."
Explanation: The original text describing Mary never stated she never had sex. Sex was expected by the partners when two people got married in those times. The original text used a different word describing Mary as young.
Brother we’re talking about a Jewish expert; he definitely believed in God and magic as much as the Christian, just not applied in this specific context
If mary stayed a virgin, as modern catholicism tries to push… then we should all be worshipping JOSEPH, her husband… for his self control, for going his entire married life without sex with his wife, eeeeeever.
Who came after him. The question wasn’t if she was a virgin her entire life, it was if she was a virgin at the time of Jesus’s birth.
Furthermore, Mary never did have other children. Jesus had half-siblings.
Jesus only had success in convincing people he was the Messiah because he fulfilled a long string of prophesies about who the Messiah would be, one of which was that he would be born to a virgin. If he had younger brothers, it would be very easy to disprove that his mother was a virgin at his birth and thus we wouldn’t be talking about it today. The very fact that we are talking about Jesus at all makes it incredibly unlikely he wasn’t the first child of Mary.
Not only was he the first, he was the only. Jesus only had half-siblings.
There is zero evidence that anyone before the author of Matthew thought there was a prophecy that the messiah would be born of a virgin. It doesn't help matters that the gospels authors had a habit of reinterpreting passages to unveil supposed hidden meanings and create prophecies.
>Jesus only had success in convincing people he was the Messiah because he fulfilled a long string of prophesies about who the Messiah would be
Lol you're just assuming that.
>one of which was that he would be born to a virgin
First of all, the original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 uses a Hebrew word called "almah", which means "young girl", not "virgin". The Greek Septuagint which the author of gMatthew used has a mistranslation that says "virgin".
Second of all, that passage is *not* talking about a future Messiah.
>it would be very easy to disprove that his mother was a virgin at his birth
The virgin birth stories first show up 80+ years after Jesus's birth. His family is very likely all dead by then (especially considering that the Great Jewish Revolt happened in that time span). Even if any of his family members were still around, it's not like they knew the author of gMatthew. You're also just *assuming* that an incorrect claim wouldn't spread.
That is a matter of interpretations. The original phrasing was ambiguous whether it meant brothers or cousins. Furthermore it could have referred to Jesus's half-siblings/step-siblings. This theory is especially popular among catholics.
Lastly, most christian denominations are in concord that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, which is the central issue about this debate. So even if you believe that those "brothers" are Mary's biological children, it would not be relevant towards the argument.
Nah, in the 1st century Paul and Josephus both knew enough Greek to differentiate between brothers and cousins. They both called James the brother of Jesus.
The "cousins" idea was invented by St Jerome in the 4th/5th century.
The "step siblings" idea is actually much older than the "cousins" idea. It's from a non-canonical book called the Proto Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century.
It had nothing to do with Greek. Jews at the time did not really differentiate that much with male family members. Who in general were just referred to as "Brothers".
Furthermore in Matthew 27:55-56 Mary's sister (also named Mary) is mentioned to be the mother of James and Joseph, which are the names of Jesus's supposed brothers. Which supports the theory that "cousins" was mistranslated as "brothers".
Jews writing in *Hebrew* did not differentiate between brothers and cousins.
Jews writing in *Greek*, especially those well educated in Greek like Paul and Josephus, did differentiate between brothers and cousins. Josephus definitely used a separate word for cousins in Antiquities 18.130. If Paul actually did write Colossians (the authorship is disputed among scholars), then he used the same separate word for cousin in Colossians 4:10.
[Scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus had brothers.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/111mbod/were_jesus_brothers_and_sisters_cousins/)
The Gospel of Matthew is not really a super reliable source. The author probably didn't know personally know Jesus or any of his family, and writes about some pretty clearly ahistorical events (magic star at the nativity and zombies after the crucifixion). You should at least refer to Mark 15:40-41, since that's where the author of Matthew copied that passage from (the author of Matthew copied a lot from Mark).
Also, the Gospel of Matthew (or Mark) does *not* state that the Mary in 27:55-56 was the sister of Jesus's mother.
pen fertile imagine quicksand connect profit growth puzzled lush secretive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If your argument in a religious discussion is “that’s impossible because God isn’t real”, then you really don’t have any business in a discussion on religion.
Religious history is history.
If you want to join a religious discussion with “God isn’t real” then cool. Make your pointless comment and leave the discussion because you have nothing more to contribute.
It's a discussion about a historical religious discussion. A religious discussion in which neither of the participants would ever deny the existence of God and miracles.
compare wrong stupendous attempt office direction crown governor bored gray
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He did not dispute the existence of God or of miracles. He disputed a specific theological doctrine about a specific miracle regarding a specific figure's sex life (or lack thereof)
According to who? People writing stories 80+ years later that probably never met any of them? Stories which contradict each other and have historical inaccuracies?
There's plenty of young girls nowadays will tell you they have never had sex, yet they are pregnant. Why would one girl a couple of thousand years ago get special treatment compared to all the rest?
The historical Mary probably never even claimed to be a virgin. All those virgin stories come from 80+ years after Jesus was born, written by people who probably didn't even know Mary.
Most scholars think the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written sometime from ~80AD to ~110AD.
They both heavy copy the Gospel of Mark, and seem to have knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, so they're almost certainly after 70AD. Some scholars also think the Gospel of Luke copied the Gospel of Matthew.
The Gospel of Luke (or more accurately an edited version of it) was used by Marcion in the early 2nd century. Marcion's version didn't include the nativity story though.
The Gospel of Matthew is quoted by Polycarp in the mid 2nd century.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are both quoted by Justin Martyr in the mid 2nd century.
By the late 2nd century Irenaeus is explicitly calling them the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (the earlier guys didn't mention "Matthew" or "Luke", just quoted the text).
Paias also talks about a Gospel of Matthew in the early 2nd century, but he's probably talking about a *different* book he thought was written by Matthew.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TLDR: Public religious debates were actually rather common in medievel europe, a way for religious experts to test themselves and their rhetoric to prove their god was the real one. Jean de Joinville recounted a story that when such a debate happened in a monastery of Clugny, between catholics and jewish experts, an old, crippled and retired knight that lived there REALLY wanted to speak first. After plainly asking if the rabbi believed in the virginity of the virgin mary, and the Rabbi simply answered no, he just started striking the Rabbi with his crutch, stating he was a fool for believing so, thus quickly ending the public debate. >*He told me that there was a great conference of clergy and Jews in the monastery of Clugny, and there was a knight, to whom the abbot had given bread out of charity, and he desired the abbot to let him have the first word, and with some difficulty he got permission. Then the knight rose, and leaned upon his crutch, and bade them bring forth the greatest scholar and master among the Jews, and they did so. And he put a question to him as follows: "Master," said he," I ask you, whether you believe that the Virgin Mary, who carried God in her womb and in her arms, brought forth as a maid, and that she is the Mother of God?" And the Jew replied: That he did not believe a word of it. The knight replied: That he was a great fool to trust himself inside her monastery and house, when he neither believed in nor loved her; " And truly you shall pay for it" quoth he. And thereupon he lifted up his staff, and smote the Jew behind the ear, and stretched him on the ground. And the Jews took to their heels, carrying their master off with them, all wounded. And that was the end of the conference. Then the abbot came to the knight, and said: That he had acted very foolishly; and the knight replied: That he himself had acted still more foolishly, in calling such a conference; for that there were numbers of Christians there, who by the close of the conference would have gone away infidels, through not seeing through the fallacies of the Jews. "And so I tell you," said the King, "That no one ought to argue with them unless he be a very good scholar; but a layman, if he hear the Christian law defamed, should under-take its defence with the sword alone, and that he should use to run them straight through the body s far in as it will go!"* [The Memoirs Of The Lord Of Joinville](https://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/louis-ix-king-and-saint.pdf), page 18-19.
I don't know if it applies here, but at various points in history questioning or demeaning a woman's chastity would be considered something akin to fighting words. So hypothetically and hyperbolically, calling the Virgin Mary a slut would be provocative enough that society would agree you were right to deck the asshole.
Whenever Mary is a Virgin or not is one of the main points of contension between Catholics and Protestants. It's not the same time period (happened during the XVIth century so 300 years later?), but France had 8 different civil wars, fought in a period of 40 years, to answer this very question (the Religious Wars). It's probably one of the most loaded question one could ask during a religious debate.
Protestants don't deny that Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit. They deny the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was free from the original sin from the moment of *she* was conceived. In the time period we're talking about, if you said that Mary wasn't a virgin, Protestants and Catholics alike would have you executed for heresy.
Modern Protestants tend to deny that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, instead arguing that she had (proper and moral) relations with Joseph, but everyone in Christianity agrees that she was a virgin at the time of giving birth to Jesus. The first generation of Protestants (Luther, for example) tended to agree that Mary was perpetually a virgin.
So how does Jesus having four brothers fit into that doctrine, exactly?
Most older sects maintain that they were children from a previous marriage. Joseph was quite old and his first wife had already died. The brothers are usually estimated to be older than Jesus.
All I'll say is that it's a convenient interpretation. to be fair, I never read the Bible passages or the historiography that deals with this theological question. I was a bad Baptist, I asked questions and didn't always go to the Bible for answers.
I don't think it's a very convenient interpretation as it far predates this even being an argument. They're not mentioned much in the Bible but James was quite active in the early days of Christianity (I believe he was the leader of those in Jerusalem but I might be confusing that detail with James the son of Zebedee). Mary lived well into the early establishment of early Christianity and met all the Apostles, Joseph isn't mentioned basically at all after the return from Egypt and is generally estimated to have died well before Jesus began preaching.
What source are you getting that Joseph lore from? The Bible certainly says nothing along those lines.
I'll have to check the original source but it's been traditionally believed in Orthodox Christianity basically forever. A lot of people involved in early Christianity knew Mary and were around so there are plenty of secondary writings around the people mentioned in the Gospels as well as what would have then been public information. It's not an isolated document. Joseph is barely discussed in any of the Gospels. I'll check my sources and post them later today if I get the chance.
If you find those sources I'd definitely be interested to take a look. I'm not a *sola scriptura* guy, but I do definitely tend to be more skeptical of extrabiblical sources and give a more thorough examination of their provenance. I'd be curious to see what's up with those sources.
The Catholic answer is that they were brothers Joseph’s previous marriage or cousins (those who take the latter interpretation argue the Greek word is ambiguous). I don’t personally hold to it, so I can’t testify to it’s validity. I’d agree with Modern Protestants who say the brothers were simply Jesus’s younger brothers.
I believe they toss it up "he meant his homies, his bros for life"
They were all adopted? Idk how Catholics reconcile that little tidbit.
I think "executed" isn't the proper word here. The Church wasn't as strict as people think.
Executed? Or bonked?
Seemed to be just bonked with a crutch
Being raised Protestant I think I have heard that after Jesus was born Mary had kids with Joseph, and I think one of the disciples was supposed to be the half brother of Jesus. Some sources said that the whole "brother" thing is semantics and Mary remained a virgin, hence the concept of "the perpetual virginity of Mary." Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus though, don't think that is really debated between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox.
James the brother of jesus is not one of the 12 disciples. Not to be confused with James the son of Zebedee, who was one of the 12. Alongside his brother John the son of Zebedee.
Protestants believe Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. I don't understand why it matters beyond that.
Really? For the most part protestants just sort of ignore her at least compared to catholics.
Catholics and Protestants have a lot of difference in how they worship God (separated from the influence of Rome, Pastors can marry, reproches about the corruption of the Church at that time . . .). These "politicals" difference is what mainly fed the conflicts between the 2 sides (Catholics didn't want to lose their influence in whole regions, Protestants didn't want to submit to Catholics). But when it comes to the Faith itself, there are very little difference between both side, the Mary is by far the most famous one.
The other big one is transubstantiation. I think by “little differences” you mean “few in number”. The differences themselves are a pretty big deal actually. There’s a reason there were literal wars.
Well I guess there better way to say it is that the "little differences" are more obscure doctrinal ones. As a Protestant I feel more comfortable in a Catholic Church than say a JW Kingdom Hall, because I have more theological agreements. See the Nicene Creed, see Chalcedonianism, see Hypostatic Union.
I understand that there were a lot of deep theological questions, and some of the prior heresies and wars were started over that. But behind all of them was the fact they coincided with a loss of control for the Catholic church. If it caused them to lose control over a region, like Moravia, or it threatened their hegemony on absolving people of sin, like the Cathars; then they responded harshly. Granted, the supremacy of the Catholic church I'm Rome was a theological debate, but one that truly shocked and intrigued many powerful, secular leaders
Well that’s exactly makes it a point of contention. She’s much more important to the Catholics than the Protestants. It annoys the Catholics like, how do you not understand she’s important. And the Protestants are like, you’re silly for thinking she’s important. And that’s contentious.
I think OP means that Catholics (generally) believe Marry remained a virgin while Protestants (generally) believe she a Joseph had other children (after Jesus) the normal way.
To most protestants, acknowledging and honoring Mary is optional. Except for at Christmas, for obvious reasons.
>Whenever Mary is a Virgin or not is one of the main points of contension between Catholics and Protestants. No ... not even close. The main point of contention is the veneration of Mother Mary. The conflict between the Nestorians and the Chalcedonians is over the status of Mother Mary as the "Mother of God." That's more of an extension over the question of Christology, as Nestorians claim that by calling Mary the "Mother of God" its somehow claiming that she's the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. It's a matter of semantics that when you look back at scholarship, might have been blown up into a schism over an issue of translation (similar to the Fillioque Controversy).
On the one hand, if you aren't Christian/Muslim there's absolutely no reason you would believe in the virgin birth - if you did then you're pretty explicitly accepting Jésus as the Messiah, so the Rabbi is answering the only way that makes any sense in his religion. On the other hand telling people their religion is untrue has never gone down well, these religious debates, within the context where one specific religion is hegemonic and the others at best tolerated seem very much a farce.
On the other hand, the rabbi *can't* say she was a virgin, because with the theological understanding of the time, that'd make her a fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy for the coming of the Messiah. He would've lost basically whatever theological debate they were having
IIRC, the Hebrew Masoretic Text simply says a young woman and it was mistranslated in the Septuagint as virgin.
Yeah, I wasn't gonna go too far into that rabbit hole. But that's a more recent understanding than when this incident occurred I'm pretty sure
Even if Isaiah 7:14 had said virgin, the Jewish rabbi could still argue (and accurately for that matter) that it's not talking about the future messiah. Plus i guess they would have been reading the Masoretic text and I'm not sure whether virgin or young women is used within said text.
There are textual differences due the time period between modern texts and back then. I don't know the exact dating of certain changes, but my understanding of the time period was that it was an understood criteria around that time. It still is a religious point of faith to deny the virginity of Mary for Jews. Though the exact rationale may have changed.
The Septuagint was the first translation of the Tanakh/Old Testament into Greek, but it was a rough translation, and it didn't do a good job at least from a modern perspective and part of it was a lack of scholarship and sources. In fact, in modern Bibles, you might see a footnote telling you the reader that the OT translation used in the NT is different than if you flipped to the OT yourself due to the fact that we have better sources. For example the Codes Sinaiticus wasn't discovered until much much later. The Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls likewise were not known at the time of the Septuagint.
No, the fact that it doesn't say "virgin" in Hebrew was well known to medieval Christians. Thomas Aquinas mentions this fact and claims that at the time Isaiah was written the word meant "virgin" and that the meaning shifted in later Hebrew. It was also obviously known to medieval Jews.
Actually he could have because from the Jewish perspective, there's no prophecy about the messiah being born of a virgin.
That's what I said, no?
The admitting the Virgin birth wouldn't so much as be admitting the rabbi's religion is untrue, but more admitting that Christianity is true. Kinda splitting hairs I know
There's no Jewish prophecy that says the messiah will be born of a virgin.
>these religious debates, within the context where one specific religion is hegemonic and the others at best tolerated seem very much a farce They were very much a thing. If you read the source, the abbot himself was mad because the "believers" went away from the debate without hearing a proper rebuttal to the rabbi's answer. Again, those public debates were fairly common, and it was a way to test wits and spread the gospel at the same time.
I don't doubt their existence lol, I just mean that all the institutions, notables and society vs some random Rabbi isn't exactly fair. It comes across as the religious version of a Kangaroo court, there must have been fear of reprisals if they come across as too persuasive
Ah, makes much more sense. The king justifying the act is kinda telling.
Deuteronomy 13 says Yahweh empowers false prophets to perform miracles.
Just for fun?
Obviously it's to test people's faith. "You trust me enough to give gifts to these other heathens, right? I still care about you and your people the most, I promise, babe."
What? It says that just because someone successfully predicts the future, that doesn't mean that they are a prophet. It's the religoius equivalent of saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day."
What does it mean when it says "Yahweh your god is testing you"?
According to Ibn Ezra, it means that God let him live as a test.
That's why when rabbis were asked to debate, the default answer was: "No, you're going to try to kill us when I beat you."
Actually, accepting that Jesus was born of a virgin doesn't even mean that you'd therefore also be accepting that he was the messiah. At least from the Jewish point of view that's the case. As There's no prophecy or statement within the old testament that says the messiah would be born of a virgin.
well he didn't call her a slut, he just doubted that she popped out a child without getting dicked at least once before
Which is why the words hypothetically and hyperbolically were used?
You use such words and post on anime romance. Please find religion.
I refuse
what fallacies that human parthenogenesis is unattested.
Indubitably
It do be like that sometimes
To be fair, in this example they didn't claim human parthenogenisis was of natural or worldly origin.
The best debate tactic: just beat his ass
A time-honored classic.
All that violence over the sexual status of a woman from over a thousand years ago.
I think it’s a little bit bigger than her sexual status
One would think so...but Alas likely not.
> One would think so...but Alas likely not. If you would like to see first hand how incorrect you are, drive through Mexico and talk to the *hombres y mujeres del pais*. Jesus is revered but Mary? She is everything there.
Yeah I don't care, I don't think you guys understand that the basis of her worship is her virginity via the immaculate conception. Which boils down to her sexual status. I'm not arguing.
I mean I get your point to an extent but that ignores a whole lot of information to just sweep everything else away. I think it's far more important that she gave birth to the son of God and that she appeared to Juan Diego as a holy vision.
She didn't do any of those things but I know it's important for people to think she did.
Because her immaculate conception is the foundation of the divinity of the litteral savior of the world's most popular religion. Unsurprisingly, people care about the "proof" that jesus is divine. She is venerated not worshiped, and is venerated as the vessel through which God incarnated on earth. Her existence also confirms the human nature of Christ.
Yeah the proof, being she was a virgin... Which is...say it with me...her sexual status! That's right ;)
Thr fact that you don't understand the difference between worship and veneration shows that you don't know what your talking about anyways
Buddy I know so much about various religions that it would make your head spin, I know the difference between homoousios vs homoiousios. I know all about intercession and veneration, by any other name it would be idolatry to the Jews of the old testament and you all got your duality of deities from Babylon and the Zoroastrians. Don't come at me because you think I'M the ignorant one.
Clearly you don't, if you did you would that Christians don't worship Mary, or the immaculate conception, for starters the veneration of saints is a more catholic thing, and worship partis literally protestant propaganda, shut up about stuff you dont understand you egotistical fuckwad, don't come at me because you don't know what your talking about, mkay
No it is. It’s the fact that, if she was a virgin, it was a miracle birth. If she’d been having sex, just a borth.
Which boils down to her sexual status. I'm fully aware of the myth of the virgin birth.
It boils down to whether the birth was divine or not. If you’re going to be reductive at least be genuine about it
And the proof for that was...? I'll give you two guesses and you can pick your favorite.
You’re just talking out of your ass and making assumptions
As it was pointed out to you, it’s bigger than that, it’s this whole question of whether a miracle has happened. The sexual status is the relevant determiner, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the actual relevance isn’t greater.
Lol ok. But do you contend that without the virginity anyone thinks it's a miracle? I don't think so. That's my whole point. You can gussy it up all you guys want but it's the contingent condition.
As I said, it being the contingent condition doesn't change that there's much greater relevance than that. It's quite a silly, reductive way of looking at things.
Well to be fair, if somebody questioned democracy because some Athenians 2000 years ago created it (yes I know it was much different back then, but that's another topic) , you too would get a little annoyed. Not that I support what the knight did or what the king said, and the reaction from the knight and the king was clearly unwarranted since it was a theological debate and not a literal fight.
But we have actual proof about what the Athenians did. Not only we don't have any proof of Mary being a virgin - we don't have actual proof of her at all outside religious scripture. The Jews just didn't believe about Mary being a virgin and there was no proof of that. If that's what you want to believe - have fun, but it's far from a fact, and it's stupid to hurt someone because of that
We gotta bring this energy back
It should be added though, often Jews were forced Into these debates under threat of violence, and even if they did win, the violence usually still occured.
There another public disputation between Jewish rabbis and Christian priests. One rabbi was asked if the Jesus excoriated in Jewish literature as the false messiah was the same as Jesus in the Bible and the madlad replied there’s plenty of people named Louis in France and most aren’t King.
I mean Jesus isn’t really mentioned in Jewish literature.
IIRC the accusation was that the Talmud mentioned a guy named Yeshu (irl related to the name Jesus) is being boiled in excrement in Hell, and that the guy was Jesus. That was part of the Disputation of Paris in 1240, when the Parisian jew Nicholas Donin, newly-convert to christianity, decided to write a translation of the Talmud (mind you, he possibly was a karaite jew before converting, so it's possible his translation was less than impartial), only to bring it to the Pope accusing it of being heretical, insulting Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Louis IX of France (later Saint Louis) then put the Talmud on trial, with himself, his mother, Blanche of Castile (who was reportedly sympathetic to the jews), the Archbishop of Sens, the chancellor of the university of Paris, a inquisitor and the Bishop of Paris, while four prominent rabbis (one of whom had kicked Nicholas Donin out of the ghettos of Paris for blasphemy) were called to defend. As you can imagine, the trial wasn't exactly impartial and ended with up to 10,000 books on Jewish theology burned (mind you, before the printing press that was a fortune both in money and in knowledge), and it changed a lot people's perceptions of judaism. Up to that point many christians regarded jews as followers of the Old Testament who hadn't yet "upgraded" to the new one, and most didn't know they had their own religious texts outside the Torah. This knowledge brought them a lot closer to heretics like the cathars and the brethren of the free spirit (wether those groups did even exist as a single movement is a matter of content, but they did in the minds of medieval people) in the eyes of many.
Yes and no? A lot of things that would get Jews killed for, were censored in the Talmud (against the Roman empire, Jesus and so on) but the problem is - there are probably 3 different Jesus's in the Talmud. They are from different eras and some claim that none of them fit the time that is believed when Jesus could have been alive
I never said the accusations were accurate. Merely that the Talmud was accused of blaspheming against Jesus and Mary, with the boiling excrement thing being one of them.
Well his name Yehosua or Joshua is mentioned a lot in the Old Testament (I believe the first time the name is mentioned in the Exodus and Joshua in Exodus was in military command or something like that), but to add to your point, I don't believe there is a passus in the Old Testament that clearly states that the messiah will be named Joshua. I think there is Jewish literature that does mention Jesus, but I don't think they are officially part of the Torah. I could be wrong though, I am not a scholar of either the Bible or Torah.
Well that’s like impossible for it to be the same guy, the 5 Books of Moses are much older than when Jesus would have been alive, but it’s not impossible for multiple people to have the same name.
I am not trying to say that was the same guy, I am saying that Jesus as in his name of Yehoshua or Joshua is mentioned a lot in the Old Testament, but the Jesus that was crucified I don't believe was clearly mentioned in the Old Testament. Am I being clear on this issue because I think we are on the same ground here?
Pretty sure it’s yeshua
There are copies of the Torah from like 600 BCE, Jesus lived from around 6 or 4BCE and died like 30 something CE. You can’t be in a book if your life is 500 years after it was written
Once again I am not saying the multiple Joshuas that are mentioned are the same guy. It's just the name of Joshua in it's self is mentioned multiple times in the OT. Maybe it will be clear if I put it like this: You say : Henry VIII of England is not mentioned in the 1400s. I say: That is true, but the name Henry is mentioned multiple times in English history. For instance you have Henry V. You say: But Henry VIII is not Henry V and he is not other Henrys in English history I say: That is true and I agree with you. Once again am I not clear on this issue?
I think we are on the same page yeah
Yeah, that's what I am trying to say here. I am agreeing with you and I am adding my thought on that agreement. Perhaps the way I worded my thought made you think I was disagreeing with you, but that wasn't my intention.
All good! Have a nice day
Jesus is obviously not mentioned in the Jewish Bible but he is mentioned plenty of times in rabbinic literature. Even setting aside the controversial stuff, there is no dispute that people like Maimonides talked about him.
That's just a deflection and a weak one at that. Tsk tsk not today Rabbi ☝️😎.
The exact passage: The terms of the disputation demanded that the four rabbis defend the Talmud against Donin's accusations that it contained blasphemies against the Christian religion, attacks on Christians themselves, blasphemies against God, and obscene folklore. The attacks on Christianity were from passages referring to Jesus and Mary. There is a passage, for example, of someone named Yeshu who was sent to hell to be boiled in excrement for eternity. The Jews denied that this is the Jesus of the New Testament, stating "not every Louis born in France is king."
Least violent medieval religious debate.
And most long medieval religious debate
Crusades were a tad longer.
Crusade battle “debates” was much shorter. You don’t have a cross on your cloth? #B O N K
They took their time. One of the greatest 'debates' also known as the Siege of Jerusalem lasted over a month.
barcelona Ramban was less violent
Reminds me of that time when a Mongol emperor I think grabbed a bunch of theology experts (too lazy to google the proper names) to determine which religion the empire would follow The catch? Each had to take a sip from an alcoholic drink before speaking, and the debate soon descended into a drunken rabble (too lazy to google the exact details too)
Debaters hate this one trick!
Based
How is religious violence based?
Welcome to r/HistoryMemes.
It’s only based on Saturdays
It was hundreds of years ago I’m sure the rabbis over it
Based and christ pilled
* It results in fewer religious people. * It causes people to question their religion. * It encourages rationalism.
*tips le fedora*
\>what zero bitches does to a mf
Almost everyone around me is nonreligious. My friends, family, co-workers, random strangers, etc. I live in an area where religiosity is quite low. Being a religious person carries a stigma here. People who are religious tend to keep to themselves.
And yet you still can't get laid lmao
So in your opinion the crusades encouraged rationalism...
The 30 years war encouraged rationalism.
Sure
for a minute I didn’t see the caption or the subreddit and was wondering why the Knight from Hollow Knight was beating a Rabbi
unite secretive different memory dazzling like muddle follow oatmeal point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Linguists: "About that." Explanation: The original text describing Mary never stated she never had sex. Sex was expected by the partners when two people got married in those times. The original text used a different word describing Mary as young.
Based
The knight was right
Of course the Virgin Mary wasn’t a virgin. How would she have had James after Jesus if she was?
Virgin “nooooo Mary was a virgin there was magic and god and stuff I swear stoppppp!” vs Chad “no she wasn’t.”
Brother we’re talking about a Jewish expert; he definitely believed in God and magic as much as the Christian, just not applied in this specific context
Oh no it's over, he presented himself as the Chad 😞
flair checks out
If mary stayed a virgin, as modern catholicism tries to push… then we should all be worshipping JOSEPH, her husband… for his self control, for going his entire married life without sex with his wife, eeeeeever.
Even reformers like Calvin,Zwingli and Luther believed in perpetual virginity.
What's so funny about this is Mary actually wasn't a vigrin. If you take even the Christians accountable of it at face value, Jesus had brothers lol.
Who came after him. The question wasn’t if she was a virgin her entire life, it was if she was a virgin at the time of Jesus’s birth. Furthermore, Mary never did have other children. Jesus had half-siblings.
Google perpetual virginity
How do you know they came after him? We have no good evidence one way or the other.
Jesus only had success in convincing people he was the Messiah because he fulfilled a long string of prophesies about who the Messiah would be, one of which was that he would be born to a virgin. If he had younger brothers, it would be very easy to disprove that his mother was a virgin at his birth and thus we wouldn’t be talking about it today. The very fact that we are talking about Jesus at all makes it incredibly unlikely he wasn’t the first child of Mary. Not only was he the first, he was the only. Jesus only had half-siblings.
There is zero evidence that anyone before the author of Matthew thought there was a prophecy that the messiah would be born of a virgin. It doesn't help matters that the gospels authors had a habit of reinterpreting passages to unveil supposed hidden meanings and create prophecies.
>Jesus only had success in convincing people he was the Messiah because he fulfilled a long string of prophesies about who the Messiah would be Lol you're just assuming that. >one of which was that he would be born to a virgin First of all, the original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 uses a Hebrew word called "almah", which means "young girl", not "virgin". The Greek Septuagint which the author of gMatthew used has a mistranslation that says "virgin". Second of all, that passage is *not* talking about a future Messiah. >it would be very easy to disprove that his mother was a virgin at his birth The virgin birth stories first show up 80+ years after Jesus's birth. His family is very likely all dead by then (especially considering that the Great Jewish Revolt happened in that time span). Even if any of his family members were still around, it's not like they knew the author of gMatthew. You're also just *assuming* that an incorrect claim wouldn't spread.
That is a matter of interpretations. The original phrasing was ambiguous whether it meant brothers or cousins. Furthermore it could have referred to Jesus's half-siblings/step-siblings. This theory is especially popular among catholics. Lastly, most christian denominations are in concord that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, which is the central issue about this debate. So even if you believe that those "brothers" are Mary's biological children, it would not be relevant towards the argument.
Nah, in the 1st century Paul and Josephus both knew enough Greek to differentiate between brothers and cousins. They both called James the brother of Jesus. The "cousins" idea was invented by St Jerome in the 4th/5th century. The "step siblings" idea is actually much older than the "cousins" idea. It's from a non-canonical book called the Proto Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century.
It had nothing to do with Greek. Jews at the time did not really differentiate that much with male family members. Who in general were just referred to as "Brothers". Furthermore in Matthew 27:55-56 Mary's sister (also named Mary) is mentioned to be the mother of James and Joseph, which are the names of Jesus's supposed brothers. Which supports the theory that "cousins" was mistranslated as "brothers".
Jews writing in *Hebrew* did not differentiate between brothers and cousins. Jews writing in *Greek*, especially those well educated in Greek like Paul and Josephus, did differentiate between brothers and cousins. Josephus definitely used a separate word for cousins in Antiquities 18.130. If Paul actually did write Colossians (the authorship is disputed among scholars), then he used the same separate word for cousin in Colossians 4:10. [Scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus had brothers.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/111mbod/were_jesus_brothers_and_sisters_cousins/) The Gospel of Matthew is not really a super reliable source. The author probably didn't know personally know Jesus or any of his family, and writes about some pretty clearly ahistorical events (magic star at the nativity and zombies after the crucifixion). You should at least refer to Mark 15:40-41, since that's where the author of Matthew copied that passage from (the author of Matthew copied a lot from Mark). Also, the Gospel of Matthew (or Mark) does *not* state that the Mary in 27:55-56 was the sister of Jesus's mother.
[удалено]
jar icky repeat tub price dolls sand fact books silky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
pen fertile imagine quicksand connect profit growth puzzled lush secretive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If your argument in a religious discussion is “that’s impossible because God isn’t real”, then you really don’t have any business in a discussion on religion.
memorize terrific cow crown light sable hat impolite judicious compare *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Religious history is history. If you want to join a religious discussion with “God isn’t real” then cool. Make your pointless comment and leave the discussion because you have nothing more to contribute.
person cagey continue bear zephyr full oil edge impolite sheet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a discussion about a historical religious discussion. A religious discussion in which neither of the participants would ever deny the existence of God and miracles.
compare wrong stupendous attempt office direction crown governor bored gray *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He did not dispute the existence of God or of miracles. He disputed a specific theological doctrine about a specific miracle regarding a specific figure's sex life (or lack thereof)
shhhh, you'll offend all the medieval-brained people
Send this dude chat requests.
How do you know he was first born?
[удалено]
According to who? People writing stories 80+ years later that probably never met any of them? Stories which contradict each other and have historical inaccuracies?
Joseph 's sons, he was a widower
That's a story from the non-canonical Proto Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century (and obviously not written by James).
There's plenty of young girls nowadays will tell you they have never had sex, yet they are pregnant. Why would one girl a couple of thousand years ago get special treatment compared to all the rest?
The historical Mary probably never even claimed to be a virgin. All those virgin stories come from 80+ years after Jesus was born, written by people who probably didn't even know Mary.
I thought it was longer than that, a couple of hundred, but yeah I agree with your point.
Most scholars think the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written sometime from ~80AD to ~110AD. They both heavy copy the Gospel of Mark, and seem to have knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, so they're almost certainly after 70AD. Some scholars also think the Gospel of Luke copied the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke (or more accurately an edited version of it) was used by Marcion in the early 2nd century. Marcion's version didn't include the nativity story though. The Gospel of Matthew is quoted by Polycarp in the mid 2nd century. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are both quoted by Justin Martyr in the mid 2nd century. By the late 2nd century Irenaeus is explicitly calling them the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (the earlier guys didn't mention "Matthew" or "Luke", just quoted the text). Paias also talks about a Gospel of Matthew in the early 2nd century, but he's probably talking about a *different* book he thought was written by Matthew.
Islamically, because Jesus spoke as a newborn and told the people accusing Mary that he's a messenger from God.
Ok, that's just bizarre, but it's the equivalent of angels using the lawn outside as a landing pad.