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?
“For folks in 2011 to dispute what Early Christians believed is a bit strange — those guys were closer in time than we were...”
Most of the New Testament was written to correct errors that Early Christians believed. If error was prevalent enough by the mid to late first century to require corrective books to be written and canonized; then quotes from 2nd 3rd and later centuries ‘early christians’ carry little weight on their own. Early Christians were being disputed by early Christians in early Christendom-
I mean if Early Christians thought we needed to be circumcised- and some did- who are we to argue?
Catholics can find absolute foundational doctrinal truth in single phrases of scripture when convenient:
This is my body- literal
This is my blood- literal
Upon this rock- means Peter, not his declaration of Jesus being the Christ (despite contrary writing by Peter in 1st Peter)
but:
brothers of Jesus= cousins, step-brothers, that kid who used to sleep-over when Jesus was in high school (IHS stands for Immacualtion High School doesn’t it?)exchange students that were like brothers to Jesus, members of the same lodge as Jesus, carpenter union members of Jesus’ local, fraternity members of Alpha Omega, just not biological brothers
Will
So, I guess next time it comes up maybe I can get my ducks in a row and have some of the things folks read to me on had to post from.
Regards
“Not so. Victorinus did not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity...nor did Tertullian.””
This is not true.
From Tertullian....
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,—that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.” Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).
And we have Saint Jerome telling us what Victorinus spoke of
From Saint Jerome
But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
“Why not discuss what the Early Church Fathers thought about a certain subject? They were very learned men.”
Why not?
Because you pointed to a caucus thread where I am not allowed to discuss such matters.
Hi Will,
think of it this way: if I say, hey, it’s raining cats and dogs out there, in one sense, a person might expect to need a very strong umbrella and a good stiff arm. In another, a person would know it’s raining very hard. Language is a wonderfully complicated thing. Others have mentioned the lack of more specific Aramaic and Hebrew words for those closely related but not from the same immediate family, aside from “brother” or “sister.” We have limitations in English, although not too many are insurmountable. I mean, the German term “schadenfreude” cannot be readily translated, just as a f’rinstance.
Not quite the same as The Eucharist. The following is from www.scripturecatholic.com:
“ John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.”
I might add one more thing, and I apologize for the length of my comment. I really, really, don’t want to bore you or make you feel like I’m talking your ear off. If the majority of the New Testament is indeed written to correct errors, does that not put a different light for you on John 6? I only mention this to underscore what others here can state better than I: language has multiple uses. Sometimes we are literal, sometimes figurative. Sometimes allegorical, sometimes sarcastic. I am being literal when I say, we believe these things because He said so. I hope that this helps a bit.
Tertuallian speaks of Mary being a virgin in your quote, as do we all. However, he did not believe in her perpetual virginity.
As for Victorinus, is correct that he did not believe that the "brethren" were Mary's; however, he did not believe in her perpetual virginity.
If it had not been important to them, they would have never spoken out about it.
LOL!
It was important to them.
A very great post. It’s so clear and easy to understand; if you’re not fighting it.
I agree. Very sad to see so many fight the truth.
Several posters here have asked, “Why is this important? It matters not in the matter of Salvation.”
Protestants wish to believe that Catholics defend this doctrine because they desire to justify their Catholic faith.
It is truth, though, that it only requires a defense because in the latter years of this “reformation” protestant preachers who found their own churches have seized upon this doctrine as proof that the Catholic Church is wrong on it and therefore is apostate and has no authority.
The truth is that this doctrine MUST be rejected by them because the Church must be rejected.
It is important because we see here most clearly the chaos Christians fall into when they reject the authority of the Church.
Just look within this thread and you will see posits that Mary could have divorced and remarried. Or married again after becoming a widow. I don’t have to remind you narses of the heinous remarks of a certain poster(in a different thread) that Mary could have been a prostitute after the birth of Jesus and that would matter not a whit.
It may be that Tertullian did not believe or espouse Mary’s perpetual virginity, but that is truly something that does not matter. The Church rejected that belief and for hundreds of years the matter was pretty much closed.
So, really, why does it matter?
It matters because the Eucharist matters and it is only in the Apostolic churches that one can receive the Eucharist. The Bread of Life which is Jesus and the Cup of the New Covenant which is His blood.
It matters and it is of the utmost importance because one risks eternal life with the rejection of Christ’s church and His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
It matters because the Eucharist matters and it is only in the Apostolic churches that one can receive the Eucharist. The Bread of Life which is Jesus and the Cup of the New Covenant which is His blood.Well said. +
Christians talk about lots of topics - that doesn’t mean that all of them are equally important..
LOL!
The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity doesn’t impact salvation at all and is a lesser topic.
“It matters and it is of the utmost importance because one risks eternal life with the rejection of Christ’s church and His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.”
Totally wrong!!
Believing or not believing the perpetual virginity of Mary doesn’t risk anyone of not having eternal life.
Proved my point, thank you:)
I didn’t see you make any points....
Slowly, so that one can understand.
When one accepts the Church as Christ’s church, one therefore accepts her authority in matters regarding faith and morals.
Rejecting the doctrine of the Mary’s perpetual virginity is merely a surrogate for the whole Church.
By rejecting the Church, one rejects the Eucharist, a teaching clearly stated and reiterated numerous times by Jesus.
In rejecting the Eucharist, one risks their eternal salvation.
Protestants need to justify their rejection of the Church, not the other way around.
Therefore, it is a very important matter.
You chose to reprint what I said about the Eucharist, ignore it and then reject the doctrine regarding Mary.
Proved my point.
**Believing or not believing the perpetual virginity of Mary doesn’t risk anyone of not having eternal life.**
Guess you will find out at the moment of your death. However there is a belief that anyone who mocks the mother of Christ is in big trouble at that moment of his or her death.
Guess you will find out at the moment of your death. However there is a belief that anyone who mocks the mother of Christ is in big trouble at that moment of his or her death.Yes, why would anyone want to take that chance? No bailing out at that point. Personally, however, I think hell is filled with a lot more Catholics than any other faith. One of my favorite, albeit painful, quotes:
All the evil in the world can be attributed to lukewarm Catholics. --Pope St. Pius VSince lukewarm Catholics voted Obama in, and the works of his administration are evil, this quote can easily be tied to modern times. We have our work cut out for us; thank God for the Church's Sacraments and sacramentals.
Agreed. I worry that Jesus will not easily forget all the horrible things said about His mother. It would be hard to forget it if it was just a human mother and son; but this was divine God and man— and His mother was the only human who participated completely in the redemption plan from the moment it began until it was accomplished. She walked every step of His earthly life with him.
I’m sure the human side of Christ is not pleased when His mother is disrespected and ridiculed. I believe people get nasty when they feel the Hound of Heaven chasing them and their entire spiritual construct is being challenged.
Catholicism is the toughest, most demanding religion. It’s not for wimps. It also asks the purest act of faith: to accept that bread is changed to Christ’s body simply because He said so! It’s beautiful and mysterious and maddening— and I am so grateful to be Catholic and receive the gift of the Eucharist.
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.