Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HarleyD

Saying the Immaculate Conception was "created" in 1854 and the Assumption was "created" in 1950 is a lot like saying that gravity was "created" when Newton defined it.

But putting aside these two beliefs, let me ask you this, why do you and others have such a difficult time with perpetual virginity? Nowhere is scripture does it state that Mary had other children. The Lord entrusted Mary to John at the Crucifixion, this would seem unnecessary if He had siblings. Neither James nor Jude identify themselves as our Lord's broher. Perpetual virginity in no way impeeds Protestant teachings about man's sinful nature. Lutheran teaching has never questioned this. Luther, Calvin and Wesley defended it. Wesley didn't leave the Catholic Church, so there's no way to say that this was an idea he just "held onto."


765 posted on 12/08/2006 7:27:51 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee; blue-duncan
But putting aside these two beliefs, let me ask you this, why do you and others have such a difficult time with perpetual virginity? Nowhere is scripture does it state that Mary had other children.

There are numerous places that indicate she was not a perpetual virgin. Catholics (and a few early Protestants like Luther and Calvin) give weak arguments. There is this verse:

Even just an honest careful reading of this verse strongly suggest Joseph had relationship after the birth of Christ. A few people normally response to this verse saying, "Yes but "until" doesn't mean that Joseph had relationships afterwards." (Calvin does this.) I don't think that is being honest with what the scripture is saying. I don't know why Matthew bothered phrasing it this way to begin with if that isn't what he meant.

Then, of course there is all the times Jesus' brothers are mentioned, such as:

People usually respond to these (numerous) verses as, our Lord was talking about His mother and His cousins; as if a whole slew of relatives descended on Him for a family reunion. That's what He gets for turning the water into wine. Of course this overlooks the fact that the term "cousin" (Luke 1:36) is used in scripture and it is not the same word. BTW-Does this sound like a Lord Jesus who is bent on every word that His mother says? They wanted just to speak to Him but He certainly didn't run to the door.

Then there is the time Paul referred to "the Lord's brothers" (1 Corth 9:5). Or when both Paul and Jude mentions James to be "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19 and Jude 1:1) but this also is some relative.

These are a few of about 10-20 various examples that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Most are explained away as the meaning is really cousin or, as in Matthew's case, it doesn't mean what it says. It's somewhat similar to b-d example of the sacrifice that was presented by Mary and Joseph about opening up the womb. Some people just ignore it.

815 posted on 12/08/2006 10:11:51 AM PST by HarleyD ("In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. " Ex 15:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson