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.)
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply. I guess I could see how it could be hard to pin down for Protestants, I was thinking there would be some writings or something that perhaps influenced others on the issue that could be pointed to.
Freegards
>>Did she think Jesus had siblings?<<
I don’t know. I doubt that it was relevant to her. It never has been to me.
The scripture interprets the original text to say he had brothers and sisters, but the original text is in a language that is vague on the subject. we are like a bunch of eskimos (who have lots of different words for different kinds of snow) forming “solid” opinions on what kind of snow was being referred to in an article written in english that mentions just “snow”.
Christianity is all about MY personal relationship with God and MY personal relationship with other men. This whole “was Mary a perpetual virgin” thing fits neither of those categories.
I am a binary thinker, being male, and this is a binary issue for me. Think of it as a computer program based on if, then, else logic. It would go like this:
Christianity requires that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man. Christianity therefore requires that Mary is the mother of Jesus, giving Him the “man” part, and God is the Father of Jesus, giving Him the “God” part.
So,
If Jesus was just born
If Mary is a virgin
Then Jesus is the Son of God
Else
Jesus is not the Son of God
endif
endif
This is time sensitive information. We rely on Mary’s virginity before Jesus’ birth to confirm he is the Son of God. It does not depend on nor is it in any way affected by her being or not being a virgin after his birth. And that is the kernel.
This is ALL about whether or not Jesus was born of a mother who could not have been impregnated by another human man. What she did after his birth is totally and utterly irrelevant.
And to be very, VERY clear, Christianity is about Jesus, not Mary. She was most definitely blessed, but in the way that the secular would would see a lotto winner as blessed. He chose her not for who she was, but for who He is. She was a flawed human being like the rest of us.
The ONLY human being to ever exist that lived a perfect life is Jesus. Mary is lumped in with the rest of us sinners who include the likes of David and Solomon.
IMO
>>The only Catholics I could find who reject the perpetual virginity are liberals who are also into abortion, gay marriage and priestesses.<<
I know lots. In fact, the only ones I’ve talked to that believe in her perpetual virginity are on the internet.
>>OK...I was asking because you used the term “Strong Catholic” to describe her.<<
First, let me say this: What I am about to say is not a put down to you or anyone personally. It is merely how I see what happened to my wife.
She was not a strong Catholic. Rather, she was a strong Christian raised in a VERY orthodox Irish Catholic family. She was VERY involved, read her bible and, because of that, asked a LOT of questions. The answers she got are what eventually caused her to leave the church. Had she stayed longer, she probably would have eventually gotten around to asking about that “perpetual virgin” line. And the answer to that question (assuming it is what you think it would have been) would have sent her running for the door.
An important perspective my wife and I both have is that the people “of bible times” were normal everyday people. They wanted the same things we all do. To have a nice place, get plenty of food, get laid, have kids. All that stuff. Mary was no different.
And here is the Kernel: Jesus wasn’t either. If He was different, then he was NOT fully man, and a major part of what He did for us is completely lost. I hated the movie “The Passion”. But one part I liked was how it showed the actual humanity of Jesus. It is an important thing to look. It is part of the foundation from which his suffering for us get’s its power. It is why he sweat blood. His “flesh” did not want to hang on that cross any more than you or I would.
“I know lots. In fact, the only ones I’ve talked to that believe in her perpetual virginity are on the internet.”
You know lots of who? Liberal Catholics who don’t believe in the perpetual virginity or conservative Catholics who don’t believe in it but don’t get on the internet?
Freegards
I know lots of “bible reading” Catholics that are very, VERY conservative and strong in their beliefs. They are similar to my wife before she left that church.
I know lots of “bible reading” Catholics that are very, VERY conservative and strong in their beliefs. They are similar to my wife before she left that church.
Until the last few weeks, I did not know just how contrary to their own churches teaching they are. They are like mormons who are just a step away from becoming “ex-mormons for Jesus”.
I thought this perpetual virgin thing was a radical fringe movement within the church. I had NO idea it was the church’s official doctrine.
“You can’t have obedience without consent.”
That is not actually accurate.
I think you might mean “You can’t have obedience without compliance.”
Because an awful lot of people have been made to obey and submit, and made to do something, but in their minds they were rebelling and hating and opposing whatever they were being made to do. Consent wasn’t in the picture, compliance was.
With Mary it was consent. You can see this in how Gabriel had to explain HOW she would become pregnant.
You would think a few would get on FR, I mean if there are conservative Catholics who reject the doctrine I’ve never encountered them. In fact, I’ve never met a Catholic who didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity. But in EVERY case of Catholics rejecting the doctrine I could find on the internet, these Catholics were dissenting liberals who also were into stuff like abortion, priestesses, and gay marriage.
Freegards
“What people seem to overlook is that there was ABSOLUTELY NOT NEED for Jesus Christ to be born at all. He could have simply materialized as a full-grown Man.”
I don’t believe that is true. The reason is that Jesus, in order to claim He had lived a perfect life as a perfect man, had to be genuinely human. Not taken a shortcut, and skipped over a bunch of time where he’d have to be exposed to the same kinds of circumstances EVERYONE else has to deal with as infants, small children, juveniles, and young adults. Satan would have been crying “FOUL!” if God claimed Jesus went through everything other humans did and still remained perfect, Satan would have rightly said it wasn’t an equal test.
So Jesus was born like a normal human, grew up, exposed to the same kinds of situations, challenges, temptations, etc - and lived a perfect life through all of the trials ordinary people go through and fail - but He, Jesus, didn’t fail a single one of them.
That’s why it was critical for Jesus to come into the world as He did. He lived a genuine human life like everyone else, no favoritism, no rigging the deck, no skipping over certain parts of a human’s life experience. And He made it through all of that perfectly. That’s why Satan can’t cry it wasn’t a fair test. It was totally fair. Christ passed a 100% fair test.
I’m just talking about people I know personally. I just started asking a few months ago when I first heard about this doctrine.
I would guess after the Council of Trent made it anathema to not believe it.
Simple study can cause all sorts of error. I know many homosexual Christians that have shown through a “simple study” that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality as a sin.
That said, the message of Christianity is both VERY simple and extremely far reaching. People add way too much irrelevant fluff - like the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So, your study reveals that the historical view that the Church has believed and taught the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout history through at least Luther and Calvin - is an error.
Care to show your work on revealing this error?
People add way too much irrelevant fluff - like the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Understanding fully who Mary is is a key part of understanding the Incarnation and who Jesus is. That this is "irrelevant fluff" is ignorance of, and an insult to, orthodox theology.
And I am saying that if there are consevative Catholics who reject the doctrine it is suprising you don’t see them anywhere. FR even has SSPX and sedevacantists, for instance, who look at themselves as more conservative than most Catholic Freepers.
Freegards
Well he created Eve who said no. Part of his plan to introduce sin into the world?
It is a story of sin and redemption. Our response to God. God's call; Eve's response; Mary's response. Adam and the second Adam.
God created man (and woman) and he endowed them with free will.
Your position leads to absolving man of responsibility, Adam and Eve, Mary and you and I. Each of us is "picked" and has a choice of yes or no. Our choice matters and it is a real choice.
I don’t bring it up on the internet unless the thread is specifically about it. I really try to avoid “picking fights” about religion publicly. It’s in this vein:
2 Timothy 2:23
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
I get involved more than I should, but I definitely don’t want to start them on the internet where non-believers can see us bickering among ourselves like little children.
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.