Posted on 11/03/2009 9:42:30 AM PST by GonzoII
There is absolutely ho historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (which necessarily includes her virginity after the birth of Christ) has been so deeply rooted in Catholic Tradition from the very beginning, that the Fathers of the Church instinctively and vigorously rose to its defense every time early heretics questioned it. Among the many witnesses that could be mentioned in this connection are: Origen, St. Epheaem, St. Hilary, St. Zeno, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many others. The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin also accepted the Catholic doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.
Mt.13:55, and Mk. 6:3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas. But Mt. 27:56, says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there. So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that – unless we suppose these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph (Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.
Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other two, Simon and Judas.
Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.
The words “brother” or “sister” were defined by their use.
The Hebrew and Aramaic ah was used for various types of relations. Hebrew had no word for cousin. They could say ben-dod, which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as “the son of the brother of his mother” or, “the son of the sister of his mother”.
Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:27-31) is called his brother in Gen. 13:8 and 14:14-16. Certainly, the Greek language does have words for cousins and other relatives, but the Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT -- abbreviated LXX) uses Greek adelphos, brother, for Lot - who as mentioned above, was really a nephew, so that objection doesn’t prove the case.
Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is especially true with St. Paul. And there is strong evidence that St. Luke at some points was translating Hebrew documents.
Mt. 1:25 – “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus”. Non-Catholics like to point to two words here, “until” and “firstborn”.
Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated. However this was not always the case. In Dt. 34:6, Moses was buried, “and to this day no one knows where the grave is”. That was true in the day of the writer of Dt.; it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1, as interpreted by Jesus Himself (Mt.22; 42-46), “The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” Of course, Jesus was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic Psalm, says that in his days “peace will abound until the moon is no more.” Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had no son until the day of her death. Of course, she did not have one after that either! In Mt.11:23, our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, “it would have lasted until the present day.” Had it lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20, Jesus promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world, does that mean He will desert us in eternity. In Romans 8:22, St. Paul says that all creation groans, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God until Paul’s day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13, the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself to reading, exhortation and teaching “until I come.” He did not mean Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come. There are more, but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.
Jesus is called firstborn in Luke 2:7 (and also in Mt 1:25, if we take the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew bekor, which chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf. Biblica 11, 1930, 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: “In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.
There are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady had other children. The decisive reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her aei-parthenos = “Ever-virgin.”
According to Papias [AD second century] – “Mary, the mother of the Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the less and Joseph, wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands” (The Fragments of Papias).
Rather than using the word “brothers” it would be more accurate to use the word “brethren.” Any way you look at it, Mary, the mother of Jesus, had only one child natural child. The rest of us are her children by adoption.
© 2004 – Victor R. Claveau
Part or all of this article may be reproduced without obtaining permission as long as the author is cited.
"For as a virgin she conceived,
as a virgin she gave birth,
a virgin she remained."
-St. Augustine: Sermons, 52. (5th cent.)
|
|
|
“Moreover, unless either the husband or wife is infertile, it is nearly impossible for a couple to only one child or no children unless contraception is being used.”
I’ll add in with personal experience. My wife & I went 10 years without having kids. The only medical condition they could find was some mild endometriosis. We adopted 2 kids.
At 40, she became pregnant, and gave birth on time - although she was on modified bedrest for the last half of the pregnancy.
12 years later, still no more kids. So 1 kid, no attempts at contraception for 22+ years. And now we’re old enough to keep it that way!
The early fathers could read too as well as talk to those who were not far removed from the events. Christians who could read taught Mary was ever virgin through the reformation.
It's not that Christians suddenly discovered the Bible, it's that other's very late in the game, 1500+ or so years late, figured that all these folks, giants in the Church, that came before must have somehow *missed* this in the Bible.
Too fantastic to be credible.
>>It’s not that Christians suddenly discovered the Bible, it’s that other’s very late in the game, 1500+ or so years late, figured that all these folks, giants in the Church, that came before must have somehow *missed* this in the Bible.<<
Tnen again, maybe it is because, finally, someone created a bible in a version that anyone could read. There are a lot of smart people out there.
>>When did Protestants start to regect the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity?<<
When they got the opportunity to read the bible themselves perhaps.
>>I would opine the new protestants started rejecting these (and other) docrines with the advent of the printing press.<<
You beat me to it...
Why is that?
“The only evidence that I will admit gives me pause is Jesus asking John to take care of His mother, rather than having one of His siblings do it.”
The Bible gives no evidence of any of His siblings believing in Him until after His death, resurrection and ascension. Given that John was the “beloved” disciple, he would be the logical choice in those circumstances.
So there is no firm date as to around when most Protestants switched from believing in it to not believing in it? I would think there would be writings and such. I’m not trying to “get” anyone, I was just curious. Are there Protestants who still believe in the perpetual virginity? Some places I looked on the web say that some Lutherans and Anglicans still believe in it, other places make no mention of this.
Freegards
Because every Tom Dick and Harry might come along and claim they have God's word.
Think about the Muslims and the Koran.
Regards.
BTTT.
>>So there is no firm date as to around when most Protestants switched from believing in it to not believing in it?<<
My take is that because my relationship is with God and very personal, I don’t think in “groups”. It is not about groups believing things at particular times. It is about individuals. And they change on a daily basis.
My wife was a STRONG Catholic until her late 30’s. She never heard of this “perpetual virginity” of Mary thing and considers it folly.
“The Bible gives no evidence of any of His siblings believing in Him until after His death, resurrection and ascension.”
That’s correct. In fact, he turned them (and his mother) away not long before. (A prophet has no honor in his home town, after all.)
Your wife never recited the Confiteor at Mass?
“So there is no firm date . . . “
Your question assumes a hierarchy (other than Jesus as Lord), which, by definition, protestants reject.
Disagreements with the official line of the Roman church began before there was an official line of the Roman church, witness Terullian, who is both a roman church father and a rejector of roman church teaching.
Protestantism is not an organization, but the idea that man is fallable and can, and will, corrupt God’s teachings, much like the Pharasees corrupted the Law.
As a result, many people can come to the same idea at different times.
I would opine the orginal “protestants” (by which I mean protestors of the official relgious establishment, not some denominition) began with Abraham, proceeded to Moses, include most of the prophets, certainly includes John the Baptist, perhaps Jesus himself, and certainly Paul.
The disagreement regarding Marian beliefs, IMHO, started way before 431AD (including Terllulian), starting spreading with the advent of the printing press/
They have probably have come to a head with the 1850ish Roman proclamations of Mary as a co-redemtrix, which, if they didn’t actually cross the line to worship (and they don’t, technically, I agree), come so close in their extreme veneration of Mary as to lead people into error.
This extreme veneration caused people to discuss these errors more often.
I don’t know. Her sister goes to mass every day and her parents are so Catholic that we were barely able to get them into our church for our wedding (we were both 44 at the time - to give you some “age” perspective).
There is so much ritual and recital and “not” bible reading that I’m not sure what the average Catholic’s perspective on all of it is. I do know that it is a common dilemma to have people recite a thing from childhood and never really understand the actual deep meaning of what they are saying. And when they do figure it out, they dump it.
I was in my late-twenties when I discovered that a phrase I always used, “Jewed the guy down”, had the word “Jew” in it. At that point I discovered the phrases roots and stopped saying it.
I think that sort of thing may have been going on with my wife.
I will say this: As a woman herself, my wife believes that the idea that Mary died a virgin is preposterous, unless she had some sort of mental or physical defect.
I just looked up the Confiteor. I could see how someone would brush by the phrase “ever virgin” and just assume it means she was a virgin when Jesus was born. If they really thought hard about it they might ask someone about the “odd” wording and only then discover that it REALLY DID mean what it seems to say.
That is one of the problems with language: Often we brush aside the literal interpretation of a phrase and replace it with what we think the writer meant. We all do it when someone says “I could care less”. We just assume the really meant to say “I couldn’t care less”.
Language, and it’s usage and interpretation, is a fascinating subject.
Sorry. The contention is not that you have to be really smart to see it in scripture, but the opposite. To propose the Church Fathers were not smart enough only compounds the illogic.
Your theory means that all the giants of the Church, who read, taught and preached the Scripture… those responsible for the great works of scriptural interpretation, Christology, the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and all the foundations of Orthodox theology: the Apostolic Fathers, Post-Apostolic Fathers, Greek Fathers, Roman Fathers, Desert Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, Nicene Fathers as well as the Reformation's sola scriptura Luther and Calvin… all missed it or were not smart enough, made this big obvious error in scripture reading for centuries upon centuries…
Until finally someone came along who was smart enough?
No. Illogical and an insult to their and our intelligence.
“My take is that because my relationship is with God and very personal, I don’t think in “groups”. It is not about groups believing things at particular times. It is about individuals. And they change on a daily basis.”
I’m not saying it (as in when Protestants quit believing in it)is a point that has vast significance, or that you should be curious about it. It seems the early Reformers believed it, and some time after them at least most Protestants stopped believing it. I was curious about that.
“My wife was a STRONG Catholic until her late 30’s. She never heard of this “perpetual virginity” of Mary thing and considers it folly.”
It’s very well known in my experience. Did she think Jesus had siblings?
The only Catholics I could find who reject the perpetual virginity are liberals who are also into abortion, gay marriage and priestesses. Of course this doesn’t mean that Protestants who reject it are liberal or anything but it seems like it is a good indicator if you are Catholic.
Freegards
““Other than that, I obviously have no opinions on the rest of the article.””
Well, I guess it is funny.
But you would think they would have someone with a Hebrew-English dictionary fact check such a basic assumption.
There is so much ritual and recital and “not” bible reading...
The entire Mass is based on scripture. It kind of sounds like you wold hope Catholics gathered for an hour of reading Scripture when they go to Mass. Well, they do.
Families can make religious life very stressful. It sounds like you and your wife are in a good place with the Lord and that her family should just take a chill-pill. Sorry about that, my prayers are with you for some family harmony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.