Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).
As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)
• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "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?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
The ones you yourself relegated to speculations ... that somehow now you insist are oral traditions.
No kiddin'. Tradition and all that bilge....
Hoss
What is tradition but speculation wearing an big, pointed hat?
“2. He gave the priesthood of ALL BELIEVERS THE POWER TO BIND AND LOOSE.”
That’s not what he says, though. He grants that to Peter. :)
WRONG.
READ JOEL
THE END OF MARK
AND I COR 12-14
What is funny is that they believe that the lurkers actually
If you speak to one of the folks in the long list the WELS reject posts to, they'll tell you they don't even read his posts -- that must be quite an ego buster
and what is even funnier is that if the hangers-on don't read his stuff, the lurkers are even less likely.
What a sad, sad individual
You got it! Don't forget the dress and the red shoes....
Hoss
LOL!! I think we’re on to something!
Besides the Scriptures are defined by the word "pure" - "Thy word is very pure" Psalm 119:140. If it is not pure, it is not Scripture. Thus we can completely trust it, meditate on it and Pray it back to God in praise and supplication.
But has not the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has led to the position that Mary's sons were not James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas and has led to override a host of Scriptures (as the beginning of this thread shows).
It certainly has. For if they are her sons, then the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is false and so are a host of other positions.
The real problem is making a Goddess and worshiping her. One whom you say you must go through to get to the Lord Jesus Christ. Whom you say Reparations are due and is Sinless. This is how you make a Goddess.
But the Scripture are clear "All have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God" (Romans 3) and all Mankind falls under that save one, The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He alone was born of a Virgin so that the Sin and Death, through the bloodline of man, could not infect him. He was begotten not made.
He alone is Sinless and the only one worthy to pay the price for the sins of folks like you and me.
Worship him alone and turn away from this Goddess.
LUKE 2:
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;
It seems that 12 was the "magic" age at which one participated in the Passover. Any younger children at home would not be attending the Passover.
Further---------
Luke 2:
Luke.2 [1] In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
[2] This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria.
[3] And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
[5] to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
There were either no other children of Joseph involved or they all had reached the age of majority and were on their own.
However, the same "brothers were traveling with His Mother while Jesus preached.
Luke 8:20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."
Simple math would make these "older sons of Joseph" in their late 40's or considerably older during His Ministry.
Assuming Jesus was the "first born" of Mary and Joseph there would be no other children to be enrolled in the census.
I thought the king was Jesus? Now he is also the prince in Ez 44? And you still have not answered your assumed equivalence between the tabernacle and ark ... and from Ez 44 you have now introduced sanctuary into the mix.
And if you go on to verse 4 in Ez 44 ...
4 Then He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the house; and I looked, and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD, and I fell on my face.
If this passage is talking about Marys body, and is advocating her perpetual virginity because of a closed East gate ... then you now have a clear example of someone worshiping Mary in verse 4. On the basis of this interpretation (which is surely the official interpretation of the RCC since you never inject your own private interpretation into Scripture) should not the RCC take this passage and immediately stop pretending that it does not worship Mary and actually do what the text says? Fall down on your face and start worshipping ... and do it in the full faith and confidence that what you are doing is supported by the Bible?
If you keep going in Ez 44, you will see where it talks about bringing foreigners into the sanctuary ... at that point your "enlightened meaning" breaks down pretty badly there does it not?
Am I being ridiculous here? Yeah, I am being overly ridiculous to prove a point ... You're interpretation of this passage in Ezekiel has no connection to anything historical, it ignores the immediate, intermediate, and ultimate context, it employs no common rules of Hebrew or Greek grammar, and reduces an otherwise straightforward portion of the OT to a nothing but a mystical Joseph Smith-like fabrication with no grounding in reality.
Interpretation within the constraints of a historical-grammatical approach to literal Biblical hermeneutics finds contentment in the plain meaning of the text. What you are teaching is a far cry from that.
No person on this earth has seen the "original" New Testament in Greek, Aramaic, or any other language.
Pure trash!
Romans 3:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
Sorry about that, I was uninformed and did at one point both sides of the matter were speculation. Thanks to the various funny posts here, though, I now know better and have even more respect for the way the Catholic church bases tradition on more than the idle speculation of those who read the Scriptures to suit themselves.
have a nice day
That certainly has been the case with the Reformation and is exactly the reason God established a Church with a teaching authority to bind the Word of God to the languages spoken by the common man. It is done through the same process and organization as the initial canon of Scripture, guided by the same Holy Spirit and is not left to man to decide each for himself.
"Thus we say Scripture interprets Scripture and to trust Scripture alone because the wiles of the devil through man is completely sneaky."
15th century snake oil!
"But there is no infallible interpreter in Man. Sinful Man will always put his bent on Scripture. Thus we say Scripture interprets Scripture and to trust Scripture alone because the wiles of the devil through man is completely sneaky.
Catholics do worship him alone and recognize no goddess. As for Mary I do not worship her, but I do love her as I love my own mother and honor her as the mother of the Savior.
No verse of Scripture identifies any of Joseph's biological children or of any cousins of Jesus.
2. Unless all of his siblings predeceased him (unlikely), a Jesus with younger brothers or sisters commits a sin from the cross in John 19:26-27, by relieving them of their obligation under Torah to support their mother
Only John was present - no other Apostle, or the brothers who "didn't believe in him".
3. Here are some opinions of sola Scriptura Protestants, who may have known their Bibles even better than Matt Slick (!!) on the subject:
Opinion is not necessarily fact.
Careful now, I was jumped on for hinting what you’ve just explained with logic. ... And thank you for the cogent commentary, once again.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: After all, what is Tradition but Speculation with a pointy hat?
And you know this? How?
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.