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.
Of course, The forces of Satan have compromised individuals within the Church. Even the original 12 Apostles included those who would betray, deny and doubt Jesus whom they knew far more intimately than any person since. But that is precisely why God choose to use a Magisterium enjoined over 2,000 years and not a single individual preacher, rebel, or "believer".
" Why would the Holy Spirit guide those seeking truth from God's word differently than he would "officials" of the church?"
Because of the doctrine of Apostolic succession, that is a special status of those whose ordination is part of a direct line, through the laying on of the hands by those whose ordination is traceable directly to the original Apostles. What they bind on earth is bound in heaven.
"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."
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for. You are justified in asking these questions. I only hope that I am up to the task of answering them.
But the canon of the Bible was decided by the councils of the Catholic Church acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit. That very same organization of men, guided by the very same Holy Spirit is engaged in the defense and interpretation of the Bible under the guise of the Magisterium.
You are too smart and too educated to hide behind the hackneyed old GIFs. Come out into an open and honest discussion of the issues where, even when you are wrong you expand the box.
See missing Apocrypha for more information on what the Catholic Church wanted mankind to believe was the inspired word of God.
Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]
Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books
Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible
Yes. Luther took books out. You think that’s ok?
The Apocrypha? What do you think I think?
Even changeable clerical celibacy.
I’m asking.
Do you think it’s ok that Luther took books out and made his own bible?
Yet this "doctrine" is not found in Scripture specifically and was invented by the very people who claimed the authority. Though there are claims of direct lines, no unimpeachable evidence exists that was true. In fact, at times there were multiple people claiming to be the Pope. At other times, the one in that position - supposedly the hand-picked successor to Peter - was as unChristian and debauched as any pagan. I seriously doubt a priest would be able to trace his own ordination back to Peter. I fail to see how these instances could be blamed on God's own direction. Yes, the forces of Satan have compromised and deceived many people through the ages, yet the infallibly declared infallible Magesterium was supposed to be the guardian of the Church preventing such a person to have authority over the entire Christian world. Explain why they failed?
That's why I do not accept that the Roman Catholic Church as the one, true ONLY church of Christ. There is way to much negative history to overcome to seriously claim infallibility of the Magesterium. No, rather, I believe God is clear that those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and become his body on earth have the indwelling Holy Spirit within them and that combined with the Holy Scripture are protected in the faith. He leads us into all truth and we cannot and do not need to trust in men who may or may not have that same Spirit within them. High office in an organizational church, we can see, does not guarantee that man is lead by God. Sure it would be wonderful to be able to depend on such Godly men for guidance, but we see what can happen when we abrogate our responsibility to know the things of God. Just like in many other religions, of all kinds, that is a dangerous thing to blindly give up. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mani, Buddha, Joseph Smith, etc.
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for. You are justified in asking these questions. I only hope that I am up to the task of answering them.
I agree and I do appreciate your response.
You all need to get together and decide what you think about Martin Luther. One minute you disdain him, and the next minute, he is practically declared divine by your church. Depends on which way you need to use him, I suppose.
We’re together on this. Luther said the Catholics had the REAL Bible. Then he took books out of it to suit his purpose and needs and whims and wishes.
Your opinion simply does not match the facts. I would recommend that you objectively study the subject and abandon those sources who stand to benefit from the destruction of the Church.
Oh, yeah, and Luther added words in to suit his fancy too.
I do a fair amount of that.
And even where I offer insights not commonly known . . . as well as abundant Scriptural and other support—the response is the same from the RC’s.
Soooooooooooo it’s decreasingly worth the bother.
That is because neither I nor the Catholic Church accept the modern doctrine of Scriptural exclusivity; that is the theological construct that all of the Revealed Word is and is only found within the Canon of Scripture and more specifically, within those Pauline letters intended for the Gentiles. It ignores the Word contained within the Apostolic Traditions.
"There is way to much negative history to overcome to seriously claim infallibility of the Magesterium."
Are you ready to similarly condemn the ministry of Jesus based upon the conduct of His Apostles, in which one doubted Him, one denied Him in his moment of need, and one openly betrayed Him?
High office in an organizational church, we can see, does not guarantee that man is lead by God."
Of course it doesn't, but although the Church aspires to perfection, it is comprised of people, burdened by original sin and human weaknesses. That is which is is an institution that moves exceedingly and at times painfully slow and distributes decisions, doctrines and dogma across a Magisterium comprised of over 31,000 current bishops and their successors.
Its just disappointing when you waste your efforts and abilities on style over substance.
I’m more than a bit surprised to read that from you.
It tends to appear that Mad Dawg is the only RC/Ortho I can reliably have a genuine dialogue with of any dependability at all.
God knows I’ve tried many times over the years with most of the rest of the RC’s. At 64 years old . . . I try to hit my head against brick walls far less than I used to.
The other RC’s on FR could go a great deal of the distance toward demonstrating a genuine interest in dialogue if they really wanted to. They NEVER HAVE—certainly not for more than a few posts or a few days—which ever came first, usually.
I’ve just not seen any significant evidence that RC’s on FR want genuine dialogue any more than Jihadi’s do.
RC’s have been trained from birth to
!!!!CONTROL!!!! !!!!CONTROL!!!! !!!!CONTROL!!!!
AND
!!!!DEMAND!!!! !!!!DEMAND!!!! !!!!DEMAND!!!!
Being on the other end of that is not Proddy’s favorite recreation regardless of how much deluded RC’s may think it is.
Perhaps most importantly, RC’s seem to have the DNA
—certainly the ORGANIZATIONAL RELIGIOUS DNA
that tolerates ONLY
NEAR
100% SUBMISSION
OR
NEAR
100% AGREEMENT.
There’s little to no room for dialogue in that.
On top of that, the critical differences tend to have no new material to share between the two camps about them.
On sum, I just can’t make a good case for bothering with even an attempt at dialogue with most RC’s on FR.
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.