Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post. Here are my issues with what the website describes:
Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible? The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!
The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible? It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.
Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”
^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”
oops to clarify something else:
John Calvin does concede that the word brothers in Hebrew can denote any relatives and that Mary did not necessarily have a TON of other sons like some have overestimated.
but again, Calvin states “...that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd.”...
I am not saying that Calvin’s own expositions should be enough to convince you of course, merely that those Catholic sites are being dishonest in saying that Calvin and the Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary.
You wrote:
“Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post.”
No problem.
“Here are my issues with what the website describes: Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible?”
It was not included because it was not inspired. That does not mean what it relates is untrue. Also, why do you assume this is of the utmost importance?
“The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!”
No. That is not the reason why the text was not included. The number of false books in no way impacts the either the truthfulness of the text in question nor its lack of inspiration. If it is inspired or not is determined solely by whether or not it is inspired or not. That’s all. You are essentially drawing a false conclusion.
“The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible?”
Why the question mark? Are you making a statement or asking a question?
“It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.”
It takes no super theologian to figure out that the text does not imply that either. Wasn’t Lot described as Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14, twice)? Were they brothers? No.
“Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.””
Did you actually read what you just posted? I’m not so sure you did since it doesn’t say what you think it does.
4.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”
So, there John Calvin is saying that ‘brothers’ doesn’t always mean ‘brothers’. Read the passage again if you don’t believe me.
“5.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 1:25”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”
And there Calvin rejects they idea that Matthew 1:25 means Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse and children. Calvin also says that Jesus being called ‘first-born’ does not mean that there were other children but that the inspired author was highlighting Mary virginity before Jesus’ birth.
You also might want to take note of the following:
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son’s commands.
{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}