[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.

[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

[ThomasMore]

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

First thing you need to do then, OP, is infallibly declare the 27 NT books as the inerrant word of God. You were neither there nor privy to their writing nor their preservation. Why should I believe you that the 27 are the inspired word of God? Why should I trust you over the Church that does have that authority? Or at least they have better evidence of such authority.

I accept the RCC teaching on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the Mother of God for the same reason I accept their declaration that the 27 are the inerrant word of God; no more no less!