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

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^ | Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,

[Patrick Madrid]

Amidst all the stimulating discussion here about the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, it ocurred to me that it would be instructive to point out that both Martin Luther and John Calvin -- the progenitors of two of the three major branches of the Protestant Reformation -- both held firmly to this Catholic teaching. For your consideration, let me add here some pertinent quotes from these two Protestant leaders.

I'd respectfully ask our Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends here to think carefully about these quotes and consider just how far modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th-century moorings, not to mention how very far it has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the Catholic Faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.

— Patrick Madrid

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

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.

Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

General

Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .

In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .

{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}

The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }

Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
 brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

  Main Index & Search | The Blessed Virgin Mary | Protestantism

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 27 January 2002.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

Yes I agree. P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.

You missed it? Must happen so much you don't even notice it. Ask Robby. I thought soon he was going to ask for your autograph. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

Yes I agree.

P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.

You missed it? Must happen so much you don't even notice it. Ask Robby. I thought soon he was going to ask for your autograph. :-)

[RobbyS]

The Scriptures are only known to be the "word of God" upon the testimony of the Church and are the most cherished part of Christian writings. But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New, so neither can be understood without the testimony of the Church. But even the Church ses Truth only by flashes of lightning.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New,

Who told ya this? Timothy? Aquilla? Presilla? Those in Berea?

[ChicagoGirl]

Matthew 1 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Main Entry: 1un·til Pronunciation: &n-'til, -'tel; '&n-", -t&l Function: preposition Etymology: Middle English, from un- up to, until (akin to Old English oth to, until, Old High German unt up to, until, Old English ende end) + til, till till Date: 13th century 1 chiefly Scottish : TO 2 -- used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time 3 : BEFORE 2

I don't believe the Bible was written in English...

Isn't the Catholic Church kind of late to the ball game when the "sinlessness" of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX at Rome, December 8, 1854?

We did not have to define it before that year, because all Christians believed it.

[RobbyS]

As you know, Christians and Jews look at the Old Testament differently. The New Testament represents the Christian claim. interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the life and acreer of Jesus. Those Jews who do not accept these claims, are not Christians.

[Revelation 911]

We did not have to define it before that year, because all Christians believed it.

Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Timothy, Aquilla, Presilla, & Those in Berea were not Christian?

[RobbyS]

Jews who are Christians have a hard time being accepted as Jews. Witness the Law of Return as applied by the State of Israel. But this has been the case since about 80 AD.

[Dr Warmoose]

So pray tell, how did James become the half brother of Jesus Christ? Was he too born of a virgin?

In fact Scripture plainy teaches that Christ had brothers and sisters, we even have names!

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

I guess this is the part where you say that Joseph brought these siblings of Christ to the family before Mary, and Mary was nothing more than a step-mother. In that case, Christ would have no common mother or father with these so-called brothers and sisters.

Furthermore, we have some serious problems because where are these kids during the sojourn to Egypt? That would also make Jesus Christ the youngest of the bunch, and I don't recall hearing about them stumbling around in the manger during Christ's birth. We also have other age difference according to Roman Catholic tradition that would make even the youngest child of Joseph older than Mary. Pretty wierd stuff if you ask me.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Jews who are Christians have a hard time being accepted as Jews. Witness the Law of Return as applied by the State of Israel. But this has been the case since about 80 AD.

I guess your answer is no. I couldn't tell cuz it seems you changed the subject. You're Catholic so I guess you can change it whenever you want.

[Dr Warmoose]

Some time ago, I wrote this piece of Smackdown to some Mary Idolator who referred to the History of Joseph as the consumate authority of the arrangements regarding Mary and Joseph and how Joe's kids were not from Mary's womb.

Available on google.com from the usenet newsgroups

Now you have done it. I know that you wish to believe what your handlers have programmed you to believe, and your post demonstrates the fact that all you are doing is parroting the party line. For instance, I have demonstrated the problems with your campfire story with principles in Scripture, you have just used wave of the hand denials, and unsubstantiated repetition of your claims. That is an indicator to all of us reading your posts that you don't have any rational or objective reason to beleive what you believe and you choose to take non-canonicals and tradition and treat them as superior to holy writ. Lets look at your highly esteemed new testament apocryphal writings, particularly "The History of Joseph the Carpenter". As the legend goes, Joseph is married to some unnamed woman, and with this woman he has four sons and two daughters before she dies of unknown causes. About the time of her death, Mary is twelve years old and has been offered to the temple since age three. The priests of this temple decided that she needs to be in the care of an honorable man so that she would not be tempted into sexual relations prior to her expected marriage. Enter Joseph. Problem is, the so-called narrative offered by Jesus while on Mt Olives to his disciples indicates that there was no intention of any marriage to go between this old man and this child (v3). In fact v4 tells us that she shacked up with Joseph for two years before getting pregnant. Compare this line with Scripture: Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Here the Bible says that Joseph was to marry this child, ~"and before they came together"~ (which pretty much is in conflict with "two years in Joseph's household") she was found pregnant. Since THoJtC says that she stayed with Joseph merely for protection, and the Bible says that she was "espoused" to Joseph, we have another conflict between this narrative and Scripture. Another problem I detected in (v2). "This same man [Joseph], being well furnished with wisdom and learning, was made a priest in the temple of the Lord." So much for the Bible declaring the tribe of Levi as priests in the temple of the Lord. Joseph descends from the tribe of Jacob not Levi. In Luke 2, Jesus is presented to Simeon to perform the circumcision, why not Joseph the priest? Later why would Joseph, the priest, be unaware of his twelve year old son's tarrying in the temple? The prologue to the narrative declares that Joseph died at the age of 111. It then tells us the day of his death, but nothing else so we are to guess the year or any nearby occasion. This leads me to ask this question. The lifespan of men rarely exceeded 70 years of age. Since Joseph is never again mentioned at any part of Christ's life after the temple incident, and we know Christ died at the age of 33, 111-33 gives us at bottom threshold of 78 years of age when Joseph got married to Mary. Verse 18 says that Jospeh was 89 when his first wife died. Add two years before Mary, and we are talking about a 91 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl. So what band of idiots would entrust a man who should be dead or old age, the life and possibly the marriage of a child. Talk about pedophilia or December January relationships. Why, every one of Jesus' half brothers and sisters were probably older if not significantly older than His mother. This is really wierd because at the age of 12, Mary allegedly ran across James the Less who was old enough to understand death and have a meaningful relationship with his biological mother - yet "she brought him up". Since Joseph's alleged first wife was wonderful and pure and her death is not associated to sin (as every other death in this narrative is strongly tied) then we should assume she died of old age, which makes sense because six children and an older man, usually parents arrange the marriages of their children, and it would be uncommon to espouse an old man to a child in this kind of arrangement. Also, because of the age of menopause, these kids would have to be in their teens up into their fourties and fifties. This is what makes the James the Less/Mary event really perverted. It is because of this peculiar event that James, and everyone who knows him, forever more considers Mary to be his true mother. (clearly this lame excuse was fabricated to answer those who point out that Scripture declares James a son of Mary by making Scripture tell a white lie). In verse 11, we are told that at least two of the sons were married and had children of their own, and both daughters were out of the house and married. This further lends support to James the Less being significantly older than Mary if this narrative is to be believed. If he wasn't so old, then why isn't James mentioned when Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt? This narrative creates more problems than it tries to answer. There is another historical error that crops up in v8 where Herod the Great (who died while Christ was in Egypt re:Matt2:15) was not the one who had John beheaded, but it was his son Herod Antipas. (Mtt 14:1). The narrative is rife with errors, none more so than in v23 where the narrator (Jesus) is saying that both Michael and Gabriel took Joseph's spirit to heaven in a "shining wrapper". This is utter heresey because it teaches a salvation that precedes the death and resurrection Jesus Christ. Christ is no longer made the first fruits; His death and resurrection have absolutely no bearing on salvation, and we are told that Joseph, not only never sinned, but didn't inherit the sin of Adam. If it is possible to be sinless and not be guilty via representation (see Romans 5) of Adam's sin, then why, by necessity, did Jesus Christ have to be born of a virgin? Your narrative make Jesus Christ a heretic, and teaches a myth that good people die nicely and get special treatment from angels, while evil people die horribly. (see how other deaths are described in the narrative) This battle for Joseph's soul and body makes a mockery of the single angel dealing with Moses' (Jude 1:9).

[snerkel]

Second hand information, in my opinion. I had rather see the quotes in complete context.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but John Calvin ain't my Pope.
And much as I respect his arguments in favor of Infant Baptism (which seem to me stronger than Calvin's, though that's just my Opinion) Martin Luther ain't my Pope either.

Let's take it Back to the Bible. Maybe you don't like "Sola Scriptura" -- neither do I. It is often misunderstood. Let us instead consider the Scriptures to be THE FIRST-CENTURY MAGISTERIUM -- By the direct and immanent inspiration of the Holy Spirit, absolutely Binding and Irrevocable upon all subsequent Magisterial Teachings.

---

BROTHERS

Proponents of the "perpetual virgin" doctrine use examples from Genesis and Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, etc. to "prove" that the Hebrew usage of "brother" was ambiguous concerning the degree of blood relation, and to that degree is correct. However, the "brother" usage in the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, therefore using Old Testament Hebrew idiom to interpret the context of New Testament Greek is absurd.

The Old Testament passages that are referenced in this doctrine were written in Hebrew prior to the 6th century B.C E. and then translated to Greek for the Septuagint in the 4th century B.C.E. The New Testament was written in Greek as its ORIGINAL language. The difficulties of stiff and often inaccurate translational Greek from Hebrew is not found as much in New Testament writings. The Greek ADELPHOS is not contextually like the Hebrew ACH, meaning "brother" or "blood relation." ADELPHOS as used to describe Jesus' brothers, is very precise Greek and means "from the same womb." The Greek word for "cousin", ANEPSIOS and is used clearly in Colossians 4:10 (”Xederfos” is another Greek term for “cousin”, but “Anepsios” enjoys more common usage in Scripture). Perpetual Virginity proponents confuse the Greek concept with the Hebrew concept by citing these Septuagint sources. In spite of this, "cousin" is clearly translated to ANEPSIOS in the Septuagint in Numbers 36:11 and Tobit 7:2. The Hebrew idiom is not related to the New Testament Koine usage of ADELPHOS for "brother" in the context of Jesus siblings. The use of ADELPHOS for those of "mutual bond," countrymen, or associates is not uncommon but is clearly suggested by context. This is not the case in both the canon and histories regarding Jesus' brothers. Additionally, there is not one case where ADELPHOS is used for "cousin" in the New Testament.

FIRSTBORN

Perpetual Virginity advocates also attempt a very creative interpretation of the word "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 by using a clear non sequitur relationship between two opposing cultures. They attempt to explain "firstborn" in Israel to the concepts of Egyptian funerary inscriptions. This is logically, historically, culturally, and linguistically irrational. Israel was male line structured while Egypt was female line structured. More important, firstborn in the New Testament is an original Greek rendering PROTOTOKON (Matt. 1:25). There can be no creative interpretation of this Greek concept. If Mary would not have had other children it would not have been written UION PROTOTOKON "Firstborn son" but instead, UION MONOGENE "only born son." There is no confusion between these concepts in New Testament Greek that purportedly "carries over" from Hebrew. You will find MONOGENE effectively used in John 3:16. The Gospel writers had a clear choice between MONOGENE and PROTOTOKON and chose "firstborn."

But here's the "kicker"... Protestants don't "need" to Win this debate. But Roman Catholics DO. To us, this debate is incidental. A Protestant could affirm "Perpetual Virginity" and still be Protestant -- Luther and Calvin did, and surely were. But to the Roman Catholics, this debate is potentially FATAL. Here's why:

PAPACY

The Conversion of James the Righteous (Ya’akov Ha Tsedek) and his Exaltation to Bishop of Jerusalem:

In fact, good interpretive evidence for something very dramatic happening after Jesus’ crucifixion lies in the very fact that Jesus’ brothers didn't believe who He was (would your brothers?) until the resurrection (which would convince anyone!). Suddenly, the oldest surviving sibling is the head of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus Movement Jews.

• Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI: "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
• Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the Episcopal Throne at Jerusalem."
• Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."
• Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
• Clement: "When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."
• Eusebius: "A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."

The choice of relatives of Jesus known as the DESPOSYNOI, "The Sons of the House," is in keeping with Jewish family feelings and practices and messianic principal.... This dynastic succession of episcopacy is also suggested by Eusebius account of the descendants of Jude (another of Jesus' siblings) after their return from trial by Domitian as they stood "at the head of every Church."

And this is directly confirmed in Scripture.

Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter answered to James (Acts 15:13) and Peter was subordinate to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12).

There is absolutely no record of anything like a "Papacy" anywhere in Scripture. But the Early Church did possess a "President of the Communion" (or dare I say, a "President of the Presbytery"?), and this President was not Peter, it was Ya'akov He Tsedek.

• The Bishop of Jerusalem (the "Core Church" at the time)...
• The Commissioner of Apostles...
• The Overseer of both Peter and Paul... (Acts 12:17, Galatians 1:19)
• The Author of the General Epistle of Saint James the Righteous...
• The eldest Brother, humanly-speaking, of the Lord Jesus Christ, as confirmed by both Scripture and Tradition.

There was never any such thing as a "Papacy", amongst the First-Century Church. But if one wishes to identify an "administrative President", it was not Peter, it was the Lord's eldest-brother James.

This is a Debate which Protestants really do not have to win.

But it is also a Debate which Roman Catholics cannot possibly afford to lose.

Unless you wish to Re-Join the True Church of Jesus Christ, in which case -- New Jerusalem beckons you Come Home, Jeroboam.

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Ba'al.

The Apostasy of Jeroboam runs deep and wide; the Faithful of Rehoboam have always been scattered. Sometimes, we have numbered 7,000 at best. But we remain Faithful.

You're under no obligation to bring your sacrifices to Samaria forever, Mr. Madrid. Come home to Jerusalem.

---

Ya'akov Ha Tsedek and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple

[Patrick Madrid]

Easy there, fellas. Relax, take a deep breath, and read what I actually *wrote* in my posts.

I'll repeat it again: The Bible says in several places that there were men who were called the "Brothers of the Lord." There is no argument about that. The issue is, were they sons of Mary the mother of Jesus or sons of another woman? James and Joses, for example, who are called the "brothers of the Lord" in Matthew 13, were in fact not the sons of Mary the mother of the Lord. They were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas (aka. Clopas). There is an example of what you don't seem to want to face up to. It's NT evidence that at least some of the very men who are called the Lord's brothers were not literally his brothers. That's the issue here. The Bible doesn't say explicitly that Mary had other children. The Bible doesn't say explicity that she did not have other children. Aside from the implicit evidence, pro and con, the Bible is silent.

As the telephone 411 operator recording says, "Please make a note of it."

Also, Warmoose, did you intend the humor you delivered so nicely when you said in one breath "we have to get back to the Bible! Sola Scriptura . . . etc." and then you launched into a post of something someone else wrote? Pretty clever. Did you catch it?

[Patrick Madrid]

Why are you trying to muddy the waters and distract attention away from the subject of this thread by introducing an irrelevant (at least as far as this topic is concerned) subject: the papacy?

When someone (such as 911) has painted himself into a doctrinal corner he can't escape from because he can't vindicate his position (as has happened on this very thread to 911 and a few others who keep beating their heads against the wall in a futile attempt to *prove* that Mary had other children besides Christ), they do two things. 1) Start the name calling (which is the fallacy of ad hominem) and 2) attempt to change the subject to something else they think they can do better on.

Anyway, regarding the papacy arguments you raised, if it's of any interest to you, I wrote a book on the subject that answers those arguments from Scripture and Christian history. It's called "Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy." I'm not looking to sell anything here. If you're sincerely interested in a Catholic response, I'd be happy to send you the book gratis and with my compliments. Just send me an e-mail and let me know where to send it -- no strings attached.

[malakhi]

But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New

Is that so?

A more accurate statement, IMO, is that the Hebrew scriptures cannot be interpreted the way you interpret them without being filtered through the lens of the Christian scriptures. No one reading the Tanakh, with no familiarity with the gospel, would understand it to be pointing to a dying-and-resurrecting God-man savior. Ya'll should put the gospels and epistles at the front of your bibles, since that's the way you read it anyway.

[ChicagoGirl]

Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

I must admit, I have never heard of Moravians. How many Moravians are there exactly? Not to be mean, but if they were right about this, perhaps God would have blessed them with more numbers.

[BibChr]

Well-said. Roman Catholics just don't get that the whole beauty of being a Christian is that God has spoken directly to each of His children in His Word (see the opening words of virtually any Epistle). We are bound to His Word — not to the accreted errors of a millennia-long game of "Telephone." We may be Calvin's students; we may not be his slaves. In other words, it isn't like being a Protestant Roman Catholic.

Further, this whole thing of "this word CAN mean ____ — so it does" is the WORST kind of lexicographical hocus-pocus. "Father" CAN MEAN non-related-predecessor. THEREFORE (I speak as a fool) God is not really the Son's Father — He is His non-related predecessor. Right? Right?

Wrong.

MOST of the time a cigar is just a cigar... and a man's brothers are just his brothers.

Dan