Posted on 06/14/2011 6:53:10 AM PDT by narses
Would you willing to try a small test, to see what happens if you try a different approach to the Scripture? It will only take a few minutes, I promise, and we'll use nothing but the Bible. It is based on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of Scripture must be done in harmony with all the other Scripture that speaks to that subject. In others words, it is ALL true. We have four Gospels, and one of the manifest blessings of that is that we can compare them, as small things in one or two can and do clarify for us what is in another. That is, of times, called Scripture interpreting Scripture.
When Protestants insist that Mary had other children, they quote these verses, among others:
Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 - "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?"
Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother"
James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon - Blood Brothers of Jesus?
These verses, importantly, actually named the Lord's brothers, whereas all the others shown did not. That is why I suggest we look at these four men: James, Joses (or Joseph), Judeas (or Jude) and Simon.
First .... James and Joseph
Let's begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That's two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:
Matt 10:3: "...'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the Less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James' father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.
Now let's do serious Bible Study, and go to Strong's and the KJV (both Protestant, by the way).
http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/
Go to that link, and search for these two passages, one at a time: Matt 10:3 and John 19:25. In the first, click the 'C' icon for the Strong's Concordance, then click the Strong's number for the name Alphaeus.
Comes up 'father of James the Less'.
We knew that. Now hit the back button to start again with John 19:25. Go to the Concordance ('C' icon), then hit the number for Cleophas, and gosh: it comes up father of James the less!
In other words, Alphaeus and Cleophas are simply two forms of the same name, and that is all we had to establish. Happens a lot in Scripture (John 11:16 Thomas, who is called Didymus; Acts 13:1 Simeon who was called Niger, etc...). So, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and a woman named Mary. Right?
Now, remember when we read in Mark 15:40 where a Mary who was the mother of James the less was standing off from the Cross? Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:
John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (emphasis added)
Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the 'sister' of Our Lord's mother - Mary!
This still leaves Jude and Simon, though, of the brothers named, right? The Protestant hypothesis is still hanging on by a thread! Two of the four 'brothers' have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary!
Next ... Jude
Acts 1:13 "...James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo'tes, and Jude the brother of James..." (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:
Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James..." (emphasis added)
It is not only NOT being held up that these brothers 'may' be Our Lord's siblings, but that idea is being REFUTED by the Scripture, when one harmonizes the Gospels! We should also point out that the Scripture nowhere calls them Mary's children.
Lastly ... Simon
Oh wait! One more! There is still Simon, the fourth brother!
Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!
Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)
Mark 3:18 "Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean..." (emphasis added)
Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!
We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a 'brethren' or 'brother' of the Christ. Let's go to John's Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called 'brethren'!
Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to 'Do as He says.'
Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast..
So Simon is from Cana, and a 'brother' of the Lord! He's not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. Even here 'sister' may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
So, why do Protestants still want to convince everybody that where you read 'brothers and sisters' it is clearly intending blood siblings, in spite of what the Scripture shows?
Sisters of Christ?
We do also read about Our Lord's sisters, correct? Maybe scriptures will bail the Protestants out on this?
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (emphasis added)
If this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James the less and Joseph, and also of Salome, then Salome could be called a sister of the Christ just as her blood brothers (same mother) could be called brothers of Christ, without being a sibling, right?
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
As we can see, in every instance in which a brother or sister of Christ is named, each one can clearly be shown to be a son or daughter of someone other than the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Now that's the look from the Bible alone, and with serious respect for the word of God, not man's opinion jumping to conclusions.
Now, after you've searched the Scripture and studied it, and harmonized all the Scripture, maybe ask - why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important to the understanding of the eternal Divinity of Christ? What does it say about an important proof of His Godhead, enough that even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley all strongly proclaimed that doctrine, in the defense of Our Lord?
I believe they do.
The only person in history who was not liable to error was Christ and that is because He did not have a sin nature.
Those who have a sin nature will err. Thus, it natural that Mary would err.
Obviously the pseudo were written later; that does not negate my point that the NT Scriptures were written before 100 AD.
Sometimes the right answer is the most obvious one. I think you have summed it up quite nicely.
Jesus had no sin nature, but he was surrounded by spiritually dead people. Nobody would be reborn and indwelt by the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. That is why you see multiple examples of even family and disciples rejecting the message or even denying Jesus. That is also why the religious leaders (the church of Jesus’ day) fought the Good News so hard. They were greatly under the influence of the evil one and feared losing their power and prestige. They had their Covenant God in front of them, but they were more concerned about their petty, manmade rules and traditions. Amazing.
Even after Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, he had to renew his mind concerning Jewish law and interaction with Gentiles before preaching to Cornelius. His spirit was right, but his head was stuck in the past.
At the cross, Jesus was simply providing for his mother because it was obvious there was division and strife in his immediate family - which Jesus had promised all Believers would endure. Once his brothers were born again, that relationship most likely was restored.
But more importantly, Jesus was establishing a new relationship with Mary. Mary needed to now see Jesus as her Savior and Lord. In order to be spiritually reborn and receive the Holy Spirit, she, like everyone else, would have to accept him as her Savior and declare Jesus her Lord. Nobody can earn their salvation. It is only by faith that we receive salvation. (John 3:16, 10; 14; Acts 2:21, 4:8-12, 15:1-11; Romans 3:21-31, 10:5-13; Ephesians 2:1-10) And its only by faith that we please God. (Hebrews 11:6)
John tells us from that moment on, he took her into his home. It seems like a very insignificant moment in the entire saga, but it is critical to understand the nature of God. He cares about everyone - widows, orphans, lonely or poor and provides richly for all who trust Him. The next few days would be filled with apprehension and fear until they were reunited with their risen Savior. Then for 40 days Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God and prepared them to receive the Holy Spirit so they could more fully understand the spiritual new birth and take that Good News to the world.
And what a wonderful message it is! Praise God!!
How beautifully written - thank you so much for putting it altogether from the heart - Especially about Jesus’ new relationship with his mother - You are exactly right.
Only thing that bothers me, and you are not the only one to have said this. But, where exactly does the Bible show John as the one Jesus was speaking to at the Cross? I know that is what Biblical scholars believe. That is what I have always been told. Never has there been an actual passage(s) quoted that tie John to the Disciple whom Jesus loved. I just remember Jesus referring to John and his brother, James, as “Sons of Thunder.” Also, John and James’ mother (who is Mary’s sister) asking Jesus for special favors for her sons in heaven, which Jesus said were not His to give. So, help me out here if you can.
John, like the other Gospel writers, made the story about Jesus. He even went so far as to minimize himself in the narrative by calling himself the one that Jesus loved. But if you look at John 21 and especially verse 24, John confirms that he was the witness and recorded these events, it is apparent that it was in fact John at the cross.
He was the only one who witnessed part of the religious trial (Peter stayed outside, denied Jesus and fled)and John was at the crucifixion with the women.
John provides the most comprehensive overview of the events starting with the entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday through the resurrection. Only an eyewitness could have provided such detail. Starting at chapter 12 he writes about the Last Supper, the washing of the feet, the deep spiritual anguish in the Garden, the betrayal, trial before Pilate, quoting Jesus for lengthy narratives and prayers. And we are so much richer having it. Those last 9 chapters really reveal the deep love that Jesus has for us and gives us the best revelation of the Kingdom of God before Paul writes his letters, which comprehensively lay out everything accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Hope this helps.
thank you - I have read all of that before. In the Gospel of Matthew, only three women are described and no men (Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and the Mother of Zebedee’s children (the Sons of Thunder, John and James) — no one is at the foot of the Cross but beholding from afar. In the Gospel of Mark, the same three women (and no men) are described “looking on afar off,” along with “many other women...” In the Gospel of Luke, “all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off...” No mention of any special man.
Now for the Gospel of John: We don’t know for sure at what point the women moved next to the Cross or if they were there all along (not mentioned in any of the other Gospels that they were by the Cross or would even have been allowed to)...”there stood by the Cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas (previously referred to as Salome in another Gospel, mother of John and James — two Mary’s in one family? typo?) and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!... and to the the disciple, Jesus said, “Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”
That passage convinces me that no way is this John the Son of Thunder,the son of Salome and Cleophas. But, what to do??? What written is written, and I will have to wait until the Hereafter to get my questions answered by the One who knows all ;o)
The church has spoken on this issue. If one is to be in communion with the church, one accepts this doctrine.
To reject the church based on this doctrine is to reject the Eucharist which is the Bread of Life and one risks eternal salvation by rejecting Jesus in the Eucharist.
So, does merely accepting and believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary mean one is saved or not saved? No, but does rejecting the Church because of it put one’s soul in jeopardy? Yes.
There is nothing Scriptural nor logical in your post.
God did not destroy marriage because of the chastity of the Holy Family, He brought salvation to mankind in Jesus.
I find many times with protestants an almost obsessive need to downplay the roles Mary and her husband, Joseph, played in our salvation.
Oh yeah, she’s blessed but that’s all, so what, nothing else to see here, move along.
There is none so blind and those who will not see. In my view, it is your relationship and understanding of Mary that is distorted.
Please read through our posts again. I did not say those words, they were copied from one of your earlier posts.
My answer to those words is what followed.
Again, when one chooses to reject the Church because of this doctrine, one rejects the Eucharist which Jesus, Himself, said is the Bread of Life. Read John, it is Jesus speaking on this. As Paul would say, it the Lord who speaks and not I.
It has been explained many, many, many times in these forums that the doctrine is not a doctrine about Mary, but rather it affirms Jesus as the Son of God, the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. The doctrine, as are all doctrines regarding Mary is in rebuttal to attacks on the divinity and humanity of JESUS.
It has been believed and been debated since the beginning and the Church rightly understands the implications of the arguments against it.
As they would say in a courtroom, “Asked and answered”.
Yeah, we all know what God can do and what he did through his son, but many people tend to forget and Mary was no different than anyone else.
Matt 12 46 to 50
While he yet talked to the people, behold , his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold , thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said , Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
The above verses show pretty plainly that the mother and brethren of Jesus were not his followers, if they had been his followers they would not have been without disiring to speak to him, they would have felt free to go right in.
So maybe there were older siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage??? That makes no sense. There is no mention of that in the Bible. You can’t go making it up...or then you’re a heretic.....
One instance is that after 3 days they noticed that Jesus was not with them, but they had supposed that he was with his brethren, he was only 12 years old so they felt he was safe because he was with his little brothers and sisters?i don,t think that makes any sense.
The Bible does not say if they were older or younger, you accuse me of making things up but i will stop short of accusing you of not using common sense.
I guess you are forgetting some verses in Luke...Are you being selective?
“Hail, Mary, full of grace.” The angel, Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“Bleesed are you among women.” is Elizabeth’s greeting later on. “Blessed is the fruit of your womb.:
“How is it that the mother of my Lord should visit me?”
Please consider those quotes too.
Mary was special.....she carried the Savior in her womb.
I pity the people who don’t think that she was special. Woe to them who mock the Mother of the Lord. (My quote)
Wouldn’t that be a sin against the Holy Spirit? After all Mary conceived Christ in her womb through the Holy Spirit. So in my judgment when people fail to accept that fact they are sinning against the Holy Spirit — the one sin that cannot be forgiven.
My whole point in this dialogue was to treat perpetual virginity as a different topic than transubstantiation, since that is worthy of its own thread. Therefore, if one were to consider perpetual virginity on its own without considering the impact on other topics, then I still believe it's not a crucial matter.
People can still come to Christ and know who He is without considering what Mary did throughout her life. One of the OT prophecies did state that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, but it didn't state that the mother of the Messiah had to remain a virgin forever. Therefore, there shouldn't be any question about the divinity of Christ because He did fulfill all of the prophecies. The arguement that Mary remained a virgin isn't needed to prove Christ's divinity.
Mary WAS and IS a virgin.
Or are you a dimocrat like Clinton who doesn’t understand the meaning of “IS?”
Pretty lame - if you want to have a serious discussion then fine, but your response is ridiculous.
I think that is a major stretch to claim that anyone denying that Mary remained a virgin forever is guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Firstly, noone denies the power of the Holy Spirit that brought the conception of Jesus about. Also, debating what Mary did later in her life is not questioning the power of the Holy Spirit since Mary was only human and not equal to the Holy Spirit.
Have you ever had a conversation with someone who is so busy thinking about what they will say next that they do not hear what you said. Then they reply to what they think you said because they were not PAYING ATTENTION!
In what way did I say that the Apostles came to faith in Jesus because of Mary’s perpetual virginity?
I will try again, in simpler language.
When Jesus said to Peter, “Lay down your net and follow me and I will make you a fisher of men”, Peter did not yet know who Jesus was.
Jesus lived among his disciples for three years, preaching, teaching and performing miracles. Near the end of His time on earth, Jesus begins to prepare them for what is to come and that is when He gives the Bread of Life discourse found in the Gospel of John.
For three years His disciples had been with Him, witnesses to all that He had said and done and yet, this ONE THING causes some of them to leave. It was too hard for them to accept. They rejected Jesus.
Jesus then asks His Apostles if they too would leave because of this hard saying. Peter replies, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. WE HAVE COME TO BELIEVE that you are the Christ, the Holy One of God.”
They came to belief and even believing, their faith was weak in the face of difficulties, until the Holy Spirit came to reside in them on Pentecost. Likewise, we, two thousand years later come to believe in Jesus by hearing His words and what He did, by knowing Scripture and understanding how He fulfilled the promises of the OT. And, like the Apostles, there are things almost too hard for us to grasp with our human limitations, but we don’t reject the whole faith because of them. We do in fact have the faith of little children, who trust that Jesus has left us a bulwark of truth who will protect the faithful from what could be devastating error.
So, this is what I actually said...
The belief that Mary was ever virgin is not a STAND ALONE doctrine but is an integral part of the mosaic of faith and salvation BEGUN by Jesus and continuously proclaimed and confirmed by His Church.
To reject the Church over this “hard saying” is to reject Jesus who said, “He that heareth you, heareth me, and he who rejects you rejects me.”
Again, not I who says this but Jesus.
I go back to my original post in which I said that many people use this doctrine as a justification for rejection of Christ’s church. Therefore, it is important and could have impact on one’s salvation.
What is ridiculous is the total distortion of what I said and the conclusions reached because of it.
For the record, let me tell you what I believe and then you won’t have to make such wild assumptions.
I believe in God. I believe that He created the world and everything in it. I believe in Jesus, truly God and truly man. I believe that He was born of Mary, who remained ever virgin, through the Holy Spirit. I believe that He was crucified, died, was buried and rose again for the redemption of my soul. I believe that He ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of God and will come again in judgement of the world.
I believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church, that the Holy Spirit guides her and protects her from error. I believe that all those who have died in the faith are with Jesus in heaven and can plead to the Father on my behalf. I
I believe that Christ is truly and fully present in the Eucharist, just as He said, and that one can only receive this most Holy and Divine Sacrament within the Catholic Church and that those who have heard the truth and reject it risk their eternal salvation in doing so.
I would agree with what you say except for one very important thing.
Had there never been any denial or heresy regarding Jesus, whether He was truly Divine and Truly Human, nor any denial or heresy regarding whether He in fact died and rose from the dead, or any of the other myriad heresies throughout the Christian history, then I would agree.
But, truth is that from the beginning there was heresy. Those who denied that Jesus was God, or that Jesus was human, or that Jesus actually died and then rose.
The doctrines regarding Mary, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, relate to the person of Jesus and the Church came to them in defense of Him, not her.
In the book of Acts we first see the issues and questions that arose IMMEDIATELY after Jesus’ ascension. Those issues and those questions needed answering and clarification because people did not just accept without suspicion the words of the Apostles.
Faith is simple yes, but it is also complicated. There are many Catholics of faith who couldn’t tell you the first thing about how the church came to understand and declare a doctrine, but that doesn’t matter.
Then there are others who question everything. Some leave, that is a fact. But, there were those who left Jesus.
Does the doctrine deserve a thread of its own? Only because protestants chose to use it to attack the Church and justify their own. Or because some Catholics, in danger of leaving because of the falsehoods about it espoused by protestants need to see and hear the truth.
How is it common sense to believe that there were older brothers and sisters of Jesus when He was the first born to Mary & Joseph as clearly stated in the Bible? Nowhere in the Bible is there any hint of Joseph having another family.
When Mary & Joseph were heading back home from Jerusalem, lots of people were travelling including extended family and friends. They weren’t worried when they didn’t see Jesus for 3 days because they believed him to be with relatives. Clearly they didn’t think he was off alone with his little brothers and sisters, who would have been missed much more quickly.
When I said you were making things up, I am not saying that you don’t have a basis for what you believe and that it hasn’t been thoroughly explored in Catholic doctrine. I am just saying that the official Catholic interpretation that Mary remained a virgin as a married woman and for her entire life, never having any more children (which you and others have espoused here) is nowhere to be found in the Bible. God picked out two ordinary people in an ordinary village doing ordinary things to be the Mother and Step-father of Jesus Christ. That’s a beautiful thing and I don’t need to imbellish it to be totally in awe of the simplicity of God’s Greatest Gift to us.
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.