unitarianism -- where no one's idea of God is better than another's...
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.
Some would even say this as close to Mary Worship you can get. Tch Tch
The Holy and Apostolic Traditions of the Church, through the Holy Spirit guided Magisterium has affirmed this and that out weighs any and all skepticism or petty objections. Catholics, like many Protestants are not blinded on this issue by the lens of Scriptural Exclusivity that constitutes the modern fringe Protestant doctrines devolved from Sola Scriptura. We see the entire spectrum of the Revealed Word and rejoice in Her blessedness.
The Protestant demands that we cover our eyes with the dark filter of their heresies and agree to see only what they see as a condition for agreement are fruitless. They are akin to discussing sunsets and flower gardens with the color blind. I don't expect you to see until you open your eyes and embrace the same traditions that brought you the Bible. Flailing at Catholics with your white cane and damning us for our sight is simply pathetic.
What is your point? That, because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Gospels, we should disregard them?
We have copies of the New Testament from the second, third, fourth centuries. There is no reason to believe that they are substantially changed from the first century originals.
Oh I see. A totally man made "Holy Spirit guided Magisterium" is your proof?
Make it up as you go. Ok!
Not one of them which is identical. You have no more idea than I what the exact wording was.
Whether or not Unitarians or you actually believe in a Holy Spirit or not, you mock and deny the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit has acted through men at your own peril. It is the unforgivable sin.
That admission of Scriptural cluelessness was both unexpected and refreshing. Absent a teaching authority you are pretty much doomed to fumbling along blindly, lashing out at others until your day of reckoning.
Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
****************************************
As you mention Boop, it does say the word “UNITL”. The obvious assumption from this text is that after the birth of Christ, this prohibition was lifted. At least that is the interpretation that most reasonable people would assume.
If I were to make a statement to a classroom that you cannot eat until three o’clock, everyone in the room would understand that to mean that they can eat after three o’clock.
Obvious.
I disagree. She carried the New Covenant in her womb. Indeed she was the Ark of the New Covenant.
How do you know that no one ever died, by the way?
It is concomitant with that, but i meant that in and of itself, one can believe in it and be saved, esp. a new convert. But to continue to defend it, in the light of the lack of Scriptural warrant and weight against, does indicate thinking of souls above that which is written in Scripture, which is able to make one wise unto salvation.
That’s what I thought. Making Mary an “eternal virgin” would have made Joseph one, too. Not many guys would want to stay married in that situation. Even a holy guy.
If you’re arguing that the RC Church DIDN’T act as sole custodian of BOTH testaments, you’d better check it out, unless you mean that what became the Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity shared some of the original texts for about 1000 years.
But if you’re arguing that the “Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God,” meaning that the Jews either shared or exclusively maintained BOTH testaments, you’ve greatly expanded what Paul said. For one thing, my bible says the Jews “WERE ENTRUSTED . . .” which, it’s fair to say, most Christians believe. The Jews, after all, have never laid claim to protecting the integrity of the New Testament. Secondly, Paul had no way of knowing that the Jewish religion would continue on its own path, without Christ, without the New Testament. He, the apostles, and nearly all their first followers were Jews who accepted Christ as the fulfillment of the (Jewish) Covenant. They had no intention of establishing a *new* religion. Christ, in their eyes, was the Perfection of Judaism, the Embodiment of the original Covenant, not the founder of new religion.
unitarianism -- where no one's idea of God is better than another's...
Nice... the Unitarians keep la-di-dahing
and it's all sola scriptura that there's no trinity in your opinion?
" The problem with non-denominational churches is that there's nothing to stop the congregation from deciding to become Mormon or Unitarian, etc. "--> The OPC equates you guys to Mormons. Congratulations!!
Do go and sing kumbaya, nothing or whatever...
iowamark -- and remember this is anti-"sola scriptura" yet arguing on the basis of ss -- talk of contradictory!!
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.