man. You're just saying that because it's true.
Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).
As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)
• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
That is simply an asertion without a basis. The church was totally silent about any Marian doctrine for centuries. You could offer some proof for you assertion.
Well, we have St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons) who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St. John. In Against Heresies 3:22 written about the middle of the second century, we have this:
4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.
And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto you.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.
And in 5:19, we find:
1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled – was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former disobeyed God, the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
No Constantine and not centuries. The student of the student of John.
Yes, it did. It was obviously the source of the mischief that crept into the church and was anathemed by Popes. It certainly did not originate with the Church. It serves no purpose, other than giving glory to Mary which Christ went out of his way NOT to do.
Hardly. We do not glorify Mary. We think rather highly of her, though, as did the earliest Christians.
Really?
Really. That is how Origen got the boot.
Your "infallible" source for the writing of 2 Peter in 150 AD is????????????
No infallible source; however http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm might be of interest. They do a very nice job in looking at all the internal and external evidence. There is of course no definite conclusion, however, the weight is on the authorship by someone else and probably in the Gnostic times of the second century.
When did the "Church's belief" about the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Bodily Assumption first become known?
Perpetual virginity? Origen ca. 230s wrote of it. Immaculate Conception? The Eastern Orthodox celebrated the purity of Mary in Syria first in the 5th century, and the Latin branch developed the concept further in the 1100s with Anselm. Bodily Assumption? John the Damascene in the 6th century.
have included a few "When Was The Bible Written" timelines for your review. I agree that neither agrees completely with the other and, in any event, both are "best guesses". However, they establish general timelines with which you can compare your "...Church’s belief about Mary started long before any NT Scripture was ever written."
Suffice to say I believe you are off, way off
When was the Bible written. 1.
When was the Bible written 2.
Thank you. However, in neither case was the timeline defended that I was able to tell. Simple statements do not necessarily prove anything. Also, what in the world are you doing on the CARM site? They'd sterilize the site with bleach for a week if they found out that a UU was wandering through it. :)
At any rate, the belief is that the Gospel writer Luke wrote the first icon - of Mary. That was certainly pre-Gospel, and possibly before any of the rest of what would become Scripture was written. Certainly before it was widely circulated.
Quite possibly. There were a lot of legends, and still are today.
"lastly, the very language of the Septuagint Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with the vulgar idiom of Alexandria."
Catholic Encyclopedia - The Septuagint
Very good.
man. You're just saying that because it's true.
man. You're just saying that because it's true.
LOL! I LOVE it!
I am SO going to be thrown out of the Inquisition ....
I was in Seminary in the early 70's. All the good 'critical' work was out there. Much of it was very plausible. And a great deal was very helpful
But when I got out into the trenches, this was my alleged thinking:
The Church gives me this collection of writings. The Church tells me it is unlike any other collection of writings.
It may be true, it may be interesting that the Apostle Peter did not write the Petrine Epistles, or not both of them. It may be true that this or that section of Mark and/or John is unattested in the earlier MSs.
But this is what the Church has given me. I cannot, without setting myself above the Church, say, "Well we don't have to pay attention to this," or "That is a later addition, so it doesn't count."
So in the exegesis part of my sermon or class prep I NOTED what the scholars said. I took it seriously. But I preached on the text as it was given to me to preach on, not on the Mad Dawg "improved" text.
I guess I was doomed to be Catholic. it seems to me the Bible comes to us as the Queen of traditions -- of things handed down. She is attended by other traditions which assist in making her known, as a queen might be attended by ladies, some competent, some not so much.Which adds up to: I don't care who wrote which bits. I mean, I'm interested, but I don't care.
Is that wrong? ;-)
Augustine … specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”
Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome). http://aristophrenium.com/fisher/was-mary-sinless/
The Church gives me this collection of writings. The Church tells me it is unlike any other collection of writings.
It may be true, it may be interesting that the Apostle Peter did not write the Petrine Epistles, or not both of them. It may be true that this or that section of Mark and/or John is unattested in the earlier MSs.
But this is what the Church has given me. I cannot, without setting myself above the Church, say, "Well we don't have to pay attention to this," or "That is a later addition, so it doesn't count."
Ah, my friend, you see that I agree inasmuch as I accept fully and completely the Canon of Scripture. It doesn't matter to me who the author is: the Church has Canonized Scripture and Canonized it is.
So in the exegesis part of my sermon or class prep I NOTED what the scholars said. I took it seriously. But I preached on the text as it was given to me to preach on, not on the Mad Dawg "improved" text.
That way lies the madness of the Reformation. Agreed again.
I guess I was doomed to be Catholic. it seems to me the Bible comes to us as the Queen of traditions -- of things handed down. She is attended by other traditions which assist in making her known, as a queen might be attended by ladies, some competent, some not so much.Which adds up to: I don't care who wrote which bits. I mean, I'm interested, but I don't care.
Is that wrong? ;-)
Arggh. Posted inadvertently.
No that is not wrong. That is how I see myself in things. Interested, but the authorship is interesting, not important.
Correct. My intent was to show that the early Church had developed Mariology which was in response to your request for information. Please refer to my reply to Old Reggie on post 1002 for some dates.
Well, not to stir the pot again or anything, but since all "our" Bibles say that Peter was the writer of both epistles under his name, for example, and that the epistle itself attests to being written by Peter (II Peter 1:1) and that some important doctrine is included in it such as the Day of the Lord (II Peter 3:11-18), the surety of prophecy of Scripture (II Pet. 1:12-21) and the warnings about false teachers and their destruction (II Pet. 2), then who are we (you) to cause doubt as to its truthful author? If others can cause us to question who wrote it and why there needed to be collusion to make it appear to be by the Apostle, then they can certainly cause confusion as to whether or not the words contained in that book or the others, for that matter, are indeed inspired and/or to be received as the commands from God.
Mark, you have in the past said you accepted the veracity of Scripture, so I wonder what the motive is when it is called into doubt with these kinds of questions concerning authorship? There are many worthy scholars who do NOT doubt that Peter indeed wrote both letters and there is ample proof that he most certainly did INCLUDING early church fathers who accepted them as well. Please then explain why there is a need to cause doubt in others about the truth of Scripture especially the reliability of the named authors.
But not as often as they think they do.For example, they often try to 'quantify' style, and then draw conclusions from that.
You both might have guess that I enjoy writing and enjoy trying to be funny. One of my current projects is this: A friend is going on a ten day vacation. I am preparing as many emails as I can which say pretty much the same thing, but in wildly different styles. I have two, one written as an Elmore Leonard gangster and one as something out of Oscar Wilde.
When I preached, my style was usually consistent. But sometimes I would go off in an completely new stylistic direction.
So who's to say that Peter or Paul didn't also sometimes go off in new directions?
Lewis gave a pretty good address on the problems of Biblical "criticism". I am preparing to move so a lot of my books are packed but if you REALLY want to know, I might be able to get the title.
But the attitude "Mark" and I have is (I think) pretty much, "Yeah, yeah. It could be the way you say. But here is the Bible the Church gave me."
So, that's not maybe quite as ful a submission as you'd like, but it's not like we're rejecting the whole thing as some of the scholars want us to do.
When I was newly ordained, some jackass archeologist condescendingly told me that the God of the OT was just a primitive sky-god.
I know what he means. There is a lot of evidence that a thunder storm over a volcano would have seemed like a theophany to our forebears.
But just because some archeological sociologist can "classify" the religion of the Jews simplyis not enough to show that that wasn't exactly how God, the REAL God, chose to get the attention of those Hebrews. And once he had their attention, he took them beyond the sky to something anyone, everyone, should worship.
The "Unafilliated" have a great advantage over the "Organized" in that we feel free to use any source generally available. :-)
(Secret: I will even use Athiest sites for research purposes.)
True! There is no defensible timeline for any book, after much debate and arm twisting, accepted into our current "perfect" Bible. I presented two differing versons as an illustration the Gospels were written and accepted long before any "Fathers" invented an exalted role for Mary.
At any rate, the belief is that the Gospel writer Luke wrote the first icon - of Mary. That was certainly pre-Gospel, and possibly before any of the rest of what would become Scripture was written. Certainly before it was widely circulated.
I must admit I chuckle when I see a presentation of fact justified by such terms as "the belief is", "Legend has it..", or "(Holy) Tradition is...".
That, my son, is not allowed as evidence in my court.
LOL! I've added it to my Photobucket album.
Frankly, I have no idea whether it's completely right, completely wrong, or a combination of "right" and "not right". In all likelihood that is the reason I evolved into a Unitarian? While I am relatively certain that our Scripture is not "perfect" in it's choice of words, books included, and books excluded, I have come to accept it as "sufficient". (Is that wrong?)
(Ask me sometime about my belief in the importance of Mary Magdalene in the miniistry of Jesus, her role in the pre and post ressurection of Jesus, and the possible "jealousy" of males who wrote her out of Scripture.)
I am not ready to nail some statement to the mast, but I think of the Bible as a book (or books) in a context. So I guess that would suggest that it is not "sufficient" because it does not -- in this line of thought -- stand alone.
But, as I say, I'm just mulling this thing over.
and ask ME why Dominicans claim a special relationship of patronage with the Magdalene who is, as we say,"the apostle to the apostles".
Actually, history tells us that when young Jewish girls took vows of chastity it was FOR LIFE. Much as it is today with nuns. What Mary was saying was that "How can this be --- because I know not man, (nor will I ever). You see, my friend, if Mary had intentions of breaking her vows one day and "knowing" a man, she would have had no need whatsoever to ask that question in the first place: "But how shall that be"? She'd have known perfectly well "how that would be".
And no, the Scripture do not tell us that Mary had other children. Some verses refer to "Jesus' brothers and sisters', meaning his followers, disciples and brothers and sisters in the spirit who followed his every word. The ENTIRE Bible is rife with the term "brothers", clearly referrng many times to like-minded followers, or close friends. But notice that the New Testament NEVER calls anyone "Mary's sons or daughters", NEVER. That's why the Protestant argument agaisnt the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity crumbles like a moth's wing when you touch it.
Furthermore, in those days the Jews spoke Aramaic, and there was no term for "cousin", so a cousin would indeed be often referred to as "brother". In fact, even UNCLES were often referred to as "brother". Thems just the facts, my ignorant friend. I hope I've enlightened you a little.
Now, if you want to brawl against the Catholic Church, go do it someplace else. Please.
As far as Mary having other children - the subject of this thread - for those not Catholic, it is no problem if she had since the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus is what counted. Her perfectly lawful and blessed marriage to Joseph could carry on as any normal family was commanded by God. I think Scripture AND history says that Jesus had blood bothers and sister and they were not only referred to as such during his time on earth, but after he ascended back into Heaven they continued that connection to him. James even went on to become the head of the church in Jerusalem as well as the author of the Biblical book by his name.
Finally, this talk of Aramaic not having a word for brother and it meant cousin or kinsman is not entirely true. There is an Aramaic translation lexicon on the Internet the link is here. I looked up the words brother, sister and cousin and they were there and were different words. Brother was 'OxOd'; cousin was 'hdd'; sister was 'Fxd'. Their roots were also different. Brother and sister both had a root of "OxO" and cousin's root was "Odd". In the Greek, the words are also different for cousin vs. brother. You also have to explain why Paul referred to Jesus' brothers numerous times. Saying they were just cousins or brothers "in spirit" is denying the context of their usage in Scripture.
As I said before, it's no biggie to me if some people want to venerate Mary as a "perpetual virgin", I think she is pretty special even without that. My problem is when it is made out to be a cardinal doctrine with total acceptance demanded under penalty of excommunication. There were many early church "fathers" who did not hold to it as well as Mary's Immaculate Conception, meaning she was born without sin. I think there is always a reason why some things ARE in the Bible and why some things are NOT.
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.