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.
Its because it isn't an either or answer. The right answer is "all of the above".
I'll tell you what I do know. I know the whole righteous indignation over Catholic doctrine is only a ruse and sham for those of you who are really offended by and opposed to the Church's positions and actions on abortion, gay marriage and adoption, euthanasia, orphans, and charity. If you could only succeed in silencing the Church you might actually succeed in achieving your social agenda. (hint: ain't gonna happen)
Its because it isn't an either or answer. The right answer is "all of the above".
I'll tell you what I do know. I know the whole righteous indignation over Catholic doctrine is only a ruse and sham for those of you who are really offended by and opposed to the Church's positions and actions on abortion, gay marriage and adoption, euthanasia, orphans, and charity. If you could only succeed in silencing the Church you might actually succeed in achieving your social agenda. (hint: ain't gonna happen)
Well, as you are wlliing and more reasonable, and the charge is that Rome has infallibly declared that it is infallible, based upon its infallibly declared formula, which renders its own declaration to be infallible and whatever else is in conformity with it. Thus who can she allow can oppose her?
But as i recall, the infallibility of the ecumenical magisterium is not explicitly infallibly declared but is derived from the declaration of V1 of papal infallibility (PI) and its infallibly declared scope and content-based criteria.
Conformity to which renders what they declare to be infallible, though that be only part of a pronouncement, while the infallible charism does not necessarily extend to the arguments or texts behind it.
Thus due to the fulfillment of criteria requiring a good degree of judgment in many cases of potentially infallible declarations, it is a matter of judgment how many are infallble. And how much of Scripture has been infallibly defined, while Catholics do not have assurance of infallible understanding of what Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means, or if it is was infallible.
And while the magisterium may invoke Scripture in support of its claims, that is not part of the criteria which provides assurance of infallibility, and which renders whatever it claims to be indisputable because it declared it, and to which assent of faith is required.
I am sure they would have a hard time if they declared the Dali Lama a saint, but it still has a basis that is not sees in Scripture, and PI met with some real opposition. Now if the ground opened up and swallowed all the Protestants.
As regards Acts 15, the church did infallibly lay down some disciplinary rules in a way that fulfilled the criteria of V1, but that is not the basis for its authority, but that it was in corroborated by Scripture, and its means of establishing new teachings, as seen under Moses, Jesus and Paul, with the supernatural Divine attestation which corresponds to its claims.
In contrast, the Sadducees did err,”not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
“{12} ¶Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. “ (Acts 15:12, cf. vs. 7-9)
“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...” (Acts 15:15-18)
The laws of v. 20 were also Scriptural, and we know this and its authority bcz is was included in Scripture.
Thus the issue is the basis for any surety of teaching is Scriptural warrant, conflation and attestation (such as the gospel of Scripture resulting in manifest transformational regeneration, etc.), versus the formulaic fulfillment of Rome.
That said, although division is necessary because of truth, there should not be an absolute disallowance to a centralized authority, local or wider, if it be Scriptural, but which disallows one which effectively presumes supremacy to the Scriptures, and a formulaic infallibility.
I'm not a fan of fiction.
Say whut?
Yeah, whatever Daniel 1212 said.
That’s the truth!
Perhaps for some . . .
Not the Proddys on FR
. . . least of all the ones I know best.
Of course then Quix will say We will be taking the garbage to the curb not him. LOL!!!
Free Republic = Free open exchange of ideas and views!!
AMEN!!
More like: “It’s a gnostic thing and Catholics can’t join.”
the formulaic fulfillment of Rome.
We're gonna have to read some documents in which stuff gets "defined" and then dicker about "formulaic", I'm guessing.
But not tonight!
Zzzzz
LOL.
It’s my understanding that there’s no garbage in Heaven.
I have no idea how that’s managed.
I'll match that and raise you a Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean and Jim McDermott.
Why you have chosen the Catholic windmill to joust is known only to you, but your fabrication of a presumed Catholic doctrine simply doesn't match reality anymore than your presumed interpretations of Scripture or the primacy of Paul over Jesus.
I'll match that and raise you a Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean and Jim McDermott.
Why you have chosen the Catholic windmill to joust is known only to you, but your fabrication of a presumed Catholic doctrine simply doesn't match reality anymore than your presumed interpretations of Scripture or the primacy of Paul over Jesus.
It looks like your lil' buddy Cronos could use some of that thar edumacation. His needle is stuck on perseverating Quix about people supposedly tied around his neck for stupid things they have said in the past and also PNSN for the wrong accusations of Islamist behavior. :o)
It really is true . . .
depending on some other assessment criteria . . .
but a major symptom of some kinds of brain anomalies—even serious problems
is
PERSEVERATION. Usually, IIRC, it’s particularly concerning when it’s in oral communications without any other explanation.
Nevertheless, the perseveration stuff I see on here gets to be more than a little odd.
Thanks for your perceptive and kind words, BTW.
Oh, man, junior high school once again! You've been called a dung beetle, Old Reg. I guess this means that kind and gentle aura from the Lenten fast has worn off, ay NL? ;o)
Must have been a typo. Damned autocorrect.
Ah, bb, stuck on personal comments. Can’t argue straight? tsk, tsk, yet you keep on grumbling about others making “personal comments” — ever looked at the log in your own eye?
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.