Hello Forest Keeper,
Nobody owes me anything, so I do not at all feel slighted that I got no responses, but I do want it on the record that I did read it and responded.
I have not responded to your post because I have been away from Free Republic for quite some time. I appreciate your patience, please allow me to respond to a few of your concerns:
“I meant that the Church must declare all verses supporting the siblings of Jesus to be void.
Scripture is Scripture, it cannot be declared void. We Christians do not believe that Jesus had any brothers or sisters, because they would have to have been fully divine and fully human. The question here is not about dismissing Scripture, it is about the correct interpretation and understanding of Scripture. The Greek word “Adelphos,” is a nonspecific term denoting close familial relationship. It has been translated into English as “brothers.” Everyone in this discussion is, however, imposing a meaning other than “brother,” onto the translation. A full brother to Christ would have to have had Mary as his mother
and God as his father. Since we Christians believe that Christ is the only begotten son of the Father, we all read another interpretation into the text.
That is the only way to maintain the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity, since it is found no where in scripture. The only evidence of any kind on the subject is that Mary did have other children, so those verses must be quashed for the good of the Church.”
Actually, FK, Scripture nowhere says that Mary had any other children. The Scriptures are silent on this subject. Any attempt to answer the question about the virginity of Mary after the birth of the Christ must move beyond Scripture. Our options are to either pass over the subject in silence, or to look toward the historical records of Christians to see what they believed about the virginity of Mary in the earliest centuries of the Church. The historic evidence indicates that the early Christians understood Mary’s virginity to be perpetual. St. Augustine framed it as follows:
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (St. Augustine, Sermons 186:1)
And again:
“"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (St. Augustine, Heresies 56 )
The only evidence of any kind on the subject is that Mary did have other children, so those verses must be quashed for the good of the Church.
Again, Forest Keeper, the Bible does not say that Mary had any other children, and there is no question about verses being “quashed for the good of the Church.” Our only direct evidence is tradition, which says that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. The tradition is maintained not as a theological development or a reflection, but precisely because it is a tradition handed down from the early Church. It is a historical aspect of Christianity.
Hello Forest Keeper,Hi IQ! --- (you just knew I was going to walk right into that one, didn't you. :)
I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I'm trying to read every post so I am frequently a few days behind. Thank you very much for your response and welcome back to FR! :)
Actually, FK, Scripture nowhere says that Mary had any other children. The Scriptures are silent on this subject.
I wouldn't say the Scriptures are silent. There is still the underlying passage of this conversation:
Matt. 13: 55-56 : 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
The whole structure of this passage just screams out at me that the reference is to blood siblings. First, the father is identified. The only possible knowledge the "people" could have had was that Joseph was a blood father. Then, the "people" identify Mary, His blood mother. Then, four individuals are named as His "brothers". Then, some who are unnamed are mentioned as His sisters. I just can't buy that all within the same, single thought, it went from naming the closest relatives to Him (mother and reference to "father") to naming distant relatives, if they were relatives at all.
Any attempt to answer the question about the virginity of Mary after the birth of the Christ must move beyond Scripture.
What about this scripture? :
Matt. 1:24-25 : 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (emphasis added)