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.
Actually, John Grace and I do well enough when we try.
However, as staunch an RC as he is, he doesn’t sound like he’s sold ever cell and fiber to the company store after a lobotomy. So I don’t tend to consider him a ‘normal’ RC.
Of course you reject it. Y'all HAVE to reject it because the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures for the faith excludes such erroneous thinking of men being able to determine, no mandate, what other Christians MUST believe in order to be saved. At one time, the church believed that Apostolic traditions WERE contained within the Bible. In fact, the Bible was specifically honored as the repository of the faith. Of course, this had to change when dogmas were invented that they knew were contrary to the written word. What had to happen was a reduction in the primacy of Scripture and the primacy of "tradition" took its place. Of course, traditions were whatever these men of the time decided they would be. I do not understand the facade of pretending Holy Scripture and tradition are not contradictory. If they were in accord, Scripture would still be preeminent simply because it was recognized as the infallible Word of God. Traditions, as being the thoughts and actions of men, could NEVER be held as infallible because there was no objective source of judging them.
Are you ready to similarly condemn the ministry of Jesus based upon the conduct of His Apostles, in which one doubted Him, one denied Him in his moment of need, and one openly betrayed Him?
No, of course not. However AFTER they were indwelled with the Holy Spirit and completely surrendered to the leading of God, they ceased being in error and denying him. Whenever they taught under the authority of Jesus Christ and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were teaching the whole truth. This truth they later committed to writing and these letters and treatises were dispersed throughout the Christian churches for their edification and knowledge. Those same writings we still have today and their authority and truthfulness is STILL in effect. As long as we hold to them and depend upon God's leading and illumination of the Holy Spirit, we can know we are in the will of God. No one has any license to go out and invent new doctrine and hold all the body of Christ to obey it if there is no Scriptural warrant. Why did the Roman Catholic Church invent the doctrine of Papal infallibility? Something that caused the rift with the Eastern Orthodox? That's not all that separated them. Why did they assume such power to declare something for which there was not only no Scriptural basis but was not even held "traditionally" in the early church?
Of course it doesn't, but although the Church aspires to perfection, it is comprised of people, burdened by original sin and human weaknesses. That is which is is an institution that moves exceedingly and at times painfully slow and distributes decisions, doctrines and dogma across a Magisterium comprised of over 31,000 current bishops and their successors.
I would think any organization that claims such power over the lives of all Christians better have stricter controls over its leaders than has been demonstrated in its history. Perhaps the reason why there is such blatant and gross sin coming to light is to expose to those who weld such power just how unwarranted their self-professed infallibility is to God. For many Christians, the contradiction was all too obvious and when there was no sign of repentance or humility they left. Men like Luther never stopped being Christians they became better ones by standing up to corruption. Rather than kicking him out and persecuting him, the "magesterium" should have gotten on their knees and begged God's forgiveness for their excesses, greed and false teachings. Instead, they stubbornly refused and God continued to add to his church those who were saved - the spiritual body that it has ALWAYS been.
I suppose we have to ask ourselves the reason we post and then determine the best way to accomplish that. For a long time I believed that I had to defend the Church and fight fire with fire, insult with insult. I have since come to believe, based largely upon my Lenten Prayers and absence from these threads, that the Church has persevered against greater attacks than any Freeper can muster and will continue to do so with or without me. Jesus promised that. All I intend to do is to present the truth to try to correct some misperceptions or outright lies. I have no interest in Proselytizing. The truth will set you free.
What is your purpose for posting?
Sounds good.
Several purposes . . . the most important for this exchange . . .
To be a watchman—particularly re END TIMES STUFF but also great/gross error etc.
To hopefully serve The Lord Jesus and His Kingdom by the above and the below . . .
to provide those interested . . . particularly lurkers . . .
with an alternative perspective on the more outrageous
idolatries, blasphemies, heresies . . . particularly in the Vatican System but wherever I observe them—even Pentecostalism
and to do so at an emotional intensity level more or less equal to that at which the outrageous stuff is propagated.
to alert folks to END TIMES/GLOBAL GOVERNMENT issues of value to their welfare and their family’s welfare and eternal life.
I could probably blather on about it and I could probably refine it if I had time and energy but that will do for now.
Those same eyes see Bible codes, UFO's, greys, capsules to heaven, Duplantis consoling Jesus (in person), etc. as real. So, please understand that what you see really doesn't influence me one bit.
Proddys are much more at peace and comfortable with folks earnestly working out their own salvation in Biblical ways as much as lies within them.
Except when they're swinging the faith alone hammer.
When their errors get so outrageous and so brazenly propagated, then some of us feel compelled to speak up as intensely as the propagations of idolatry, blasphemy and horrific heresies.
Speaking up and discussion is one thing. Lies, run-away imaginations, and use of terms like Vatican Cult, Ishtar-Mary, Magicsterium, Rubberized Bible are another that come from hate spewing out of bitterness.
That’s a huge distance removed from any bitterness about it all. Likewise the hate—DITTO.
I suppose if one is looking throught the eyes mentioned above one can see anything a spirit is capable of conjuring up.
Which translation? Which edition? Which books included? According to whom?
"... no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21
And surely the “one who is Holy Spirit filled” should be manifesting the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
I’m just sayin...
1) I don't troll threads.
... and highly atypical of the vast majority of actual Christian Protestants.
2) Not according to what the vast majority of Protestants are posting here.
It seems contextually, that jacknhoo was stating that the interpretation imposed upon the cited Scripture was ridiculous, not the actual Scripture itself.
3) There is nothing "contextually" offered when one labels an author as ridiculous while failing to present a reasonable counter-interpretation. Relying upon "this is what the Church tells me" is not a very thoughtful response.
The problem with the fringe Protestants is that they actually believe that when they impost their understanding and interpretation on Scripture that they have altered Scripture to fit their beliefs
4) This could be said for the vast majority of Catholics who believe wrongful teaching is AOK as long as it comes from a group of old men held up in fancy digs.
Wait! How many threads on this topic do we have to have?
This is not a gotcha question. How does one decide that one verse is to be taken so literally as to be proof of something while another verse is just a figure of speech?
Amen!
Hoss
Modern, as within the last 100 years. The doctrine of Scriptural exclusivity is a product of the fringe Protestant radio and TV ministries that advocate a dangerous version of bibliolatry.
Even working within your self imposed framework of Scriptural exclusivity the heresy of this position is obvious. Jesus is the Word and was the Word made flesh, not a book. Not every word, deed, and teaching example of Jesus is recorded in the Bible.
Further, your notion that Paul supersedes Jesus with respect to the Gentiles and the Word is replaced, "rightly divided", and relegated to a one dimensional shell removes the Christ from your Christianity.
Fortunately, the adherents of your heresies are dying off or converting. As the Church established by Jesus grows the fringe Protestantism crowds shrink. Your church of one is a perfect example.
love,
joy,
peace,
longsuffering,
gentleness,
goodness,
faith,
meekness,
temperance
You must be defining trolling more benignly than I do.
2) Not according to what the vast majority of Protestants are posting here.
Agreed, the lunatic fringe OPC types are way over represented on these threads than their insignificant and dwindling numbers would warrant.
"Relying upon "this is what the Church tells me" is not a very thoughtful response."
It is certainly far more valid a method than relying upon "this is what the voices are telling me" or "this is what that man on the radio says before he asks me to send money" or this is what some 16th century failed French shyster said".
"4) This could be said for the vast majority of Catholics who believe wrongful teaching is AOK as long as it comes from a group of old men held up in fancy digs."
That is purely speculative since the Church is the standard for rightful teachings. I appreciate how difficult that might be to comprehend for the rudderless.
LOL.
Agreed, but the end times began on the cross and will be completed with the second coming. We need not look to the horizon and worry or try to expedite it, No one knows the hour or the day. Our jobs are to live our lives as though it will be tomorrow. We are to preach the Gospel to every living thing. Focusing on Catholics who already do, even though you may not agree with much of our interpretation, is a misuse of your time and talents. Focus on the abortionists, those who exploit the young and cast out the old and infirm. Bring Christ to the atheists, the lapsed, the Muslims, and the Hindus, but please stop banging on devout Catholics.
"idolatries, blasphemies, heresies . . ."
There are certainly a lot of those accusations flying, but repeating them without any dissertation will not win any converts or change any hearts. It will only serve to harden the lines drawn.
I agree that Catholic doctrine can be difficult to understand until one has a comprehensive grasp of the doctrines, language, and definitions used by Catholics. Imprinting modern English definitions onto Catholic theology is often the greatest source for error.
Of course . . . by
1. CONTEXT.
2. THE REST OF SCRIPTURE
3. HOLY SPIRIT.
And that verse is not the only one mentioning his blood half-siblings by Mary.
Yeah.
Sometimes, even a poster on the RF can manifest those gifts. Or 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.