Posted on 12/31/2010 8:33:04 AM PST by marshmallow
EVERVIRGIN has been a title of our Lady from the earliest days; it appears, albeit obiter, in the documents of councils from Chalcedon onwards. It still appears (confiteor; Communicantes) in the Novus Ordo Mass; was rather more frequent in the Classical Roman Rite; and comes very often in the Byzantine Rite. It is part of the Church's Marian dogma, and was treated respectfully, if rather evasively, by the ARCIC document on Mary. Non-Catholics sneer at it. The great Tom Wright is dismissive. Let us consider the question in the form of a Socratic Dialogue.
The Gospels make it quite clear that Jesus had brothers.
They don't. Adelphoi can mean kinsmen. It doesn't have to mean uterine (that is, born-of-the-same-womb) brothers.
So you say. But that's the obvious meaning if anyone talks about "Jesus' brothers" in any language, isn't it?
Not at all. Mark's and Matthew's Gospels, in their accounts of the Crucifixion, both talk about "Mary the mother of James and Joses [or Joseph]". If this Mary had been the same as Christ's own mother, it would have been very odd for them not to refer to her as the Mother of Jesus. The "obvious" and natural inference is that the "Mother of James and Joses" was a different Mary from "Mary the Mother of Jesus".
So what?
Well, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, the places where those "brothers of Jesus" are mentioned, the full text reads: " Jesus the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses [or Joseph] and Judas and Simon". We've just seen that this James and this Joses are apparently the sons of some Mary who was not the same as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And they're the first two on the list here. The list is thus clearly not itemising individuals who were uterine brothers of Jesus.
Well, I still think it's obvious that ...
If it's so "obvious", you've got some explaining to do. Throughout the second century the Gospels were increasingly regarded as 'canonical' and authoritative. If it is so "obvious" that James and the rest of those listed in the Gospels were uterine brothers of Jesus, then the tradition that Jesus was Mary's only child must have arisen well before those Gospels came to be regarded as authorities. Otherwise, when somebody started saying "she never had any more children", somebody who had read the Gospels would have said "Aha, you're wrong: here's a list of his brothers". So, if you're right about it being so "obvious", you're going to have to admit that Mary's perpetual virginity is so early a tradition as to predate the acquisition of authority by our Four Gospels; which modern scholarship dates to the beginning of the second century at the latest. I've got you either way.
That's all gobbledegook. It's obvious ...
That's the problem with you Prods and you Liberals. You're impervious to evidence and to reason.
Of course we are. "Reason is the Devil's Whore". Martin Luther said so. It's obvious.
“That’s the problem with you Prods and you Liberals”
This is a trolling thread.
On the other hand, I take it they weren't as serious as some make them out to be, and had as much free will as any of us.
Presumably God could turn them into eternal virgins after they passed on to the great bye and bye!
“That’s the problem with you Prods and you Liberals”
That’s the problem with Mary worshippers. Always trolling.
Why is some perv so concerned about Mary’s perpetual virginity?
Anyone care to articulate why I must believe Mary was forever virginal in order to believe in Jesus Christ? Why would Mary’s perpetual virginity or lack thereof have any bearing on whether someone is saved? Seriously, if it turns out Mary had a couple kids, would that actually shake your faith in Jesus Christ?
Do you believe Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? And many other Protestants?
> This is a trolling thread.
OK, it’s not just me, then.
It appears that Catholics are making a lot of posts in this forum looking for a fight, using demeaning language and disdain for any whose beliefs are not congruent to theirs.
Whyn’t y’all take your Catholic dogma to a Catholic website and have at it there? I’m sure there are plenty of them. Maybe you just like stirring the pot a bit, eh?
I was baptized, raised, catechised, and confirmed a Catholic.
Attended a Catholic high school. Was even member of a Marian club while there.
Was in the Newman club in college.
Studied Catholic dogma, was subject to all its indoctrination and rituals.
Jesus set me free from all that.
PRAISE THE LORD!!
(1st John 2:27, 2nd Cor 3:17, Gal 4:9-11, Gal 2:11, Eph 2:8-10, etc, etc, etc ...)
HERE is a good place to start.
There was an article in the WSJ, yesterday about another Catholic hospital closing and the influence of Sister Keehan. This one was in Phoenix, AZ. Why don’t you do some posting on that?
I’ve been wondering if Sister Keehan is part of the Catholic liberation theology movement?
> Well aren’t YOU just super-duper special!!!
No moreso than you.
The Lord paid for my sins by his agony on the cross, just as He did for you.
Unless you come as a little child, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Little children cannot parse all the arcane and byzantine minutiae of volumes doctrine. Such things appeal to the pride of man.
(Matt 18:3-14, Matt 23:11-12)
The writer's viewpoint is expressed in the title. If you disagree, then don't click on the thread. Every church has a viewpoint that is different, no one gets to censor someone else. The Religion Forum rules can be found by clicking on the Religion Moderator's profile.
The comments I referenced had nothing to do with the title, or “what different churches believe”. They are intentionally inflammatory, and highly offensive. This thread is for the sole purpose of trolling.
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3) As additional assurance that those who were making these comments were very well acquainted with our Lord’s earthly family, we read: “But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but inhis own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mark 6:4, 5)
In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos'}; for sisters, it’s adelphe {ad-el-fay'}. The word for cousin/kinfolk is suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.
Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)
What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)
The Word of God could not have made it any clearer that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Following is a list of New Testament verses that simply cannot be misconstrued no matter how loudly the Roman Catholic apologists protest.
Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Mark 6:3 Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1 (probable).
In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother) not as His suggenes, (cousin or kinfolk). It is out of the question to think or believe that Paul didn’t know the difference between a brother and a cousin. Moreover, the great historians of the patristic age – Josephus of Judaism, and Eusebius of Christianity – made reference to brothers of the Lord in their respective histories.
In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” His meaning could not be clearer. The Jude he refers to was a blood brother of Jesus, not a brother by faith.
But the doctrine of Mary’s lifetime virginity, the denial that she and Joseph enjoyed a normal marriage as commanded by God in 1st Corinthians 7:4, 5, actually was obviated about 800 years before the births of Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: “I am become a stranger unto
my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa 69:8, 9)
How do we know that these verses are a Messianic prophecy? Because we read in the Gospel of John: “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:15-17)
And in Romans, we read: “For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Romans 15:3)
The Roman Catholic doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christ’s birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effect accuses the Word of God of lying to us.
Strong viewpoints are routinely expressed on the RF. The comment was not directed to any particular person, and so, if someone takes it personally, the question becomes, why?
Stating that “This thread is for the sole purpose of trolling” is a statement that presumes to know what is in the original poster’s mind.
A close look at marshmallow’s history shows a number of threads on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant debate. Religion forum threads are often very contentious.
If someone is offended, then perhaps it would be better to stay off the Religion Forum, or to stick to ecumenic or caucus threads. For a discussion of Open, Ecumenic, and Caucus threads, please see the Religion Moderator’s profile page.
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.