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.
I’m sorry, I have no clue as to what your post was attempting to say. Try again?
Let us consider your post 351 before that:
No. Most of the problem is that people have rejected their own God-given ability to understand His word in favour of letting someone else tell them what God is saying.
This says that you can create your own doctrine and not rely on the Church at all to do so. You are going against your own preachings and it is not pretty.
But let me ask you something while you're here: When did the Church begin? Could you give me Scriptures, if possible, to back up your answer? Thanks.
Sure. It began in at the latest in Matthew 16 (arguably speaking it began with the calling of the first Apostles), and the Church was commissioned at Pentecost (Acts 2). Sorry if it escaped you.
The Ark of the Covenant was deadly because God specified there had to be a mediator between His presence and men. That was the High Priest, allowed to face the ark once a year.
At the crucifiction of Jesus, the veil that separated humanity from God’s presence was ripped from top to bottom.
Now we are told that we have one mediator and one sacrifice, and that we no longer need sacrifices of animals to approach God.
There is no Ark of the New Covenant that kills men who dare come into God’s presence.
It says NOTHING OF THE SORT, that a person can CREATE THEIR OWN DOCTRINE, Mark. Either you are reading pixated posts, or you simply cannot comprehend. Neither one is pretty and is unbecoming someone who seems to fancy himself a lecturer of non-Catholics.
Sorry if it escaped you.
You know what? On second thought, I don't really care when you believe what you believe happened. Your flippant attitude has worn thin with me tonight. Have a good one.
How did they hear scripture, and how were they saved?
It says NOTHING OF THE SORT, that a person can CREATE THEIR OWN DOCTRINE, Mark. Either you are reading pixated posts, or you simply cannot comprehend. Neither one is pretty and is unbecoming someone who seems to fancy himself a lecturer of non-Catholics.
Actually, it says everything of the sort. Either you have the authority of the Church in defining doctrine or else you do not. You reject the Church and you take upon yourself the authority to create you own beliefs. There is nothing substantial between you and, say, Aimee Semple Macpherson.
Sorry if it escaped you.
You know what? On second thought, I don't really care when you believe what you believe happened. Your flippant attitude has worn thin with me tonight. Have a good one.
Yeah, yeah. It's all about you, isn't it?
But you do admit that scoundrels, at times, were allowed into the fold, don't you? That wolves, disguised as sheep, were allowed into the very seat of Peter, yes? That this "infallible" Magesterium was able to be bought off, blackmailed, scandalized and found to be heretics, as well, do you not? Seeing as the history of the Magesterium is not as stellar as I'm sure everyone would desire them to be, is it not then understandable, even expedient, that each Christian be allowed to study the Holy Scriptures and enjoy that same leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit that indwells every true child of God that cannot be exclusively claimed by others simply based upon their status in the Church? Why would the Holy Spirit guide those seeking truth from God's word differently than he would "officials" of the church? I ask these questions not to trick or harass but simply to challenge the lock-step thinking that has allowed error to slip into Christian doctrine.
Because the bible teaches that the magisterium has an office assigned to it by Christ.
As for ‘all scripture is useful’, what scripture is he talking about?
If people decide what is and isn’t scripture, then the Word of God is lost, and that is exactly what has happened.
Everything written in the Bible is God’s word, Scripture. No one can decide what is and isn’t Scripture. It is God’s word, not ours. They can choose to believe it or not, but the fact that it is HIS word never changes. So some people decide to add to or take away from God’s word to form a NEW doctrine, something that ISN’T in Scripture. Like, for example, Mary being sinless, or Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven, Mary being the Queen of the Universe, or a Pope, etc. Those are clearly not Scriptural, in God’s word. Which is exactly why the Word of God is lost. And doctrines of fallen man are used to form religious systems. People rejecting God’s word. THAT is exactly what has happened.
Well, of course I am...to you. However, the teachings of Jesus Christ to his disciples - along with what had already been established in the Old Testament - was written down by those followers under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that he would send the Spirit and he would bring to their remembrance all those things that he had taught. To what end do you think he said that? So that those teachings would be handed down strictly verbally and never written in a form that could be copied and passed down? I don't think so. The Holy Bible we have today is what all "traditions" should be judged against. Jesus, it is said, DID many things that would take the whole world and forever to write down, but we can be confident - based upon the very words of Scripture - that what we have is what we need to base all doctrines of the faith upon.
It is interesting to study about traditions in the churches of the first few centuries after the Apostles were all gone and it is admirable that heretical leaders were disputed using the very words of Scripture, however, just because a Mideastern church thousands of years ago did X, it doesn't necessarily mean ALL churches must also do X to be considered Christian. Scripture is quite clear what is needed to become a Christian and those basic tenets of the faith are not nebulous concepts that require a PHD to decode. They are simple and straightforward and are the starting point of the Christian life setting the stage for future growth and maturity of the faith. Yes, teachers and pastors and leaders are all good and contribute to that spiritual growth as well as evangelists that go out into the world preaching the Gospel and bringing people into the fellowship, but it is by the leading of God through the Holy Spirit that that each heart gets touched and convicted of sin and the need of the Savior. The "church" does not save anyone. Jesus does and those who are saved become members of the body of Christ, his church.
“No one can decide what is and isn’t Scripture. It is God’s word, not ours. They can choose to believe it or not, but the fact that it is HIS word never changes. So some people decide to add to or take away from God’s word to form a NEW doctrine, something that ISN’T in Scripture.”
Then what did Martin Luther do? He tore out scripture that he disagreed with and founded his own church. Do you agree with his actions?
What? The Apocrypha?
Prove the Scripture is true? Faith does not require proof.
More twisting of Scriptures and DAFFYNITIONS, I see.
INDEED.
Actually, virtually the only bitterness I see on the FR Rel forum
spews from RC’s, an Ortho or so and some agnostics/atheist types.
Proddys are much more at peace and comfortable with folks earnestly working out their own salvation in Biblical ways as much as lies within them.
When their errors get so outrageous and so brazenly propagated, then some of us feel compelled to speak up as intensely as the propagations of idolatry, blasphemy and horrific heresies.
That’s a huge distance removed from any bitterness about it all.
Likewise the hate—DITTO.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[19] Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
[20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Of course, the Vatican Cultists have to chop off their rubberized ‘bibles’ when the text is inconvenient to their idolatry of the INSTITUTION or of the Ishtar-Mary Goddess figure etc. etc. etc.
The passage is incomplete without verses 19 & 20.
This whole
Ishtar-Mary-Goddess figure being the purported New Ark
is so hideously UNBIBLICAL . . . and such an unfitting fantasy. The authentic Mary must be very disgusted with it if she knows anything about it at all.
Very well put.
She’s everywhere it seems. Show me a miracle, and before long, there she is. No one questions it, no one seems to care that it’s just ODD, her being wherever the miracles are abounding. Find a type of Christ in the Bible, and there she is. Or becomes..Stage mother, I think. If she’s not actually THERE, in person, then, there she is... in a cloud. Or a piece of toast. I thought she was in Heaven, standing at Christ’s hand, giving Him instructions. How old would she be by now? About 2040 years old? She certainly gets around.
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.