Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

John:

When Jesus saw his mother ¹¹ and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son."

Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

And the corresponding footnote:

¹¹ [26-27] This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus' concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in John 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in John 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (John 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus' revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.

I am puzzled why you say that John the evangelist must talk about Mary more. Most Protestants take the Bible literally.

Isn't this one mention of her enough for you? Funny because Protestants (maybe not you) but some Protestants I know have formed an entire belief on two words: "faith only" (And Luther added the word 'only'to the original text!!)

The name of the website contains evidences and references in the bible for numerous things. It does not contain references that could be ironclad proof that Mary was "ever virgin". That does not disqualify the name of the site. It contains lots of things. The bible does not prove the opposite contention at all except to English speakers who take the KJV or another English translation to be the only Inspired book and the original Greek as being uninspired and invalid. That would lacerate that old Christian Tradition that revelation is closed, that there is no new revelation since Christ. And were Luther et al wrong?

Yes. Think of it this way. When Jesus ascended into Heaven there was no book or writings of his teachings. He- by His own Choice- passed on his teachings to various followers. Later those followers spread his teachings. Eventually, some of those teachings were written down. The act of recording those teachings didn't mean that Jesus' teachings that weren't recorded suddenly became invalid. Later, councils decided which writings should be included in Scripture. Those Scriptures were part of the ``Tradition'' that Christians recieved from Jesus Himself. Jesus himself was responsible for passing on his teachings to his followers in oral form. To claim that this ``Tradition'' is not satisfactory, is to claim that Jesus' ministry was itself deficient. No council has the authority to decide that some of Jesus' teachings can be shed. To recognize only the teachings of Jesus which were recorded in that form is to make the Council of Nicea superior to Christ himself.

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

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.