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.
In spite of the fact that Mary was chosen by God to bear His only begotten Son, protestants just can’t handle the fact that she is special. And I mean REALLY special. For all time. No, they have got to have her with multiple kids and only one special kid, sinning, dying and just being another typical Jewish mother in heaven, maybe.
I mean, did the Tree of Life grow in just any old dirt? Heck no! It grew in The Garden of Eden. Which is WAY more special than any other garden on earth.
Sister Katherine Marie? Is that you?
Well, of course I am...to you.
It's not about me. I meant to say that Scripture was chosen as a matter of Tradition, not vice versa.
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.
And changed and modified and some of which was written a century or more after His Ascension. Why was John not written until 90 or so AD? What of the Comma Johanneum? What about the other changes that were made to the texts?
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.
Then why did they wait so long to write the Gospels? And if they remembered correctly, why does John think that the Crucifixion happen the day before Pentecost and Mark, the day after? All four Gospels have different signs about the head of Christ on the Cross and all four have different versions about Resurrection Day.
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.
Paul doesn't say that and neither does anyone else in the Bible. In fact, Paul is quite insistent that the teachings (Tradition) of the Church are to be followed expressly.
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.
That is one of the purposes of Nicea and the Nicene Creed. The Creed lays out what a Christian is supposed to believe. The Athenasian Creed, although never ratified in an ecumenical Coucil, is even more exact.
The "church" does not save anyone. Jesus does and those who are saved become members of the body of Christ, his church.
Let us not forget the Traditions of the Church and the Great Commission. The Church is supposed to teach. Let's put it this way - does straying from the teachings of the Church to the extent of, say, Mormonism make one be non Christian?
John 21: 15 8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Did Jesus say this to anyone else?
it’s not a “protestant” v/s Catholic thing —> because to many Lutherans and Anglicans this is a true belief (not to all of course) — because for Luther and Calvin this was true and they believed in this as the apostolic faith
Just a couple of days ago at 75 years old i learned that the Catholics must believe the same way i do, so if not all protestants believe opposite then it could not be called a protestant and Catholic thing but how many besides me did not know that and are just taking the other side? thanks for the info.
Which faith is that? The faith of Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? Amee Semple Macpherson? Joseph Smith? The faith that you came up with last night while gazing fondly in the mirror?
I’m Catholic, but frankly never had a problem with the concept that Mary could have had other kids. However, the verses you listed, the point you make - that is pretty convincing. Thank you very very much.
Why not? He was a great Bishop of the Church and fantastic evangelizer. He saved the fledgling Church by selling Christianity to the Greeks. Never, no where, no how, can you find acceptance of "Tradiition To Be Developed."
If that is so, then why are you not reading the Didache or Hermas or Barnabas? Why do you read a Bible that contains known changes since the earliest records we have of them? The development of the Liturgy, the Canonization of Scripture, the Trinitarian formula that we follow, and the initial dismissal of the entire OT, followed by a revival and acceptance by the Church are all things that changed early. The development of the Chi-Rho and the icthus as symbols of the faith.
As well, as the Faith grew and spread, the development of hierarchy was necessary, and as Paul wrote of repeatedly, a need to keep watch on developed heresies. Most people don't realize that most Church decisions on theology were actually in response to a growing heresy, at various points in history.
Yeah, yeah, we all know because you've told us so many times. The Church of Iscool (population one), with the doctrine created and handed down from the Throne of Sunday Sports aka The Thundermug.
MB: Which faith is that? The faith of Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? Amee Semple Macpherson? Joseph Smith? The faith that you came up with last night while gazing fondly in the mirror?
Mark, your response doesn't even rise to the level of Darwin Award or blond joke category - it's that pathetic.
Does that mean that your mirror needs cleaning?
You're just saying that because it's true.
Actually, Cronos, no. I was concerned about your being stuck on personal comments. I wonder why instead of offering clear arguments concerning the subject at hand, you in turn resort to the canned text stored on your homepage whenever certain posters DARE offer arguments on threads - regardless of the subject. Dr.Eckleburg dares speak about something - whoop there it is! Cronos posts his anti-OPC diatribes. PNSN posts a comment, whoop there it is! Cronos rags on his stealth Muslim troll suspicions. Quix dares to make a comment. Whoop there it is! Cronos drags out the Jesse, Benny, UFO, McPherson diarrhea of the mouth junk. Has it occurred to you that nearly everyone scrolls on by this by now? I have no problem about speaking my thoughts on the subjects that interest me. What I don't see much is any independent thinking on your part. Why is that?
Where is your church???
Where is your church???
I keep telling you that I don't have a Church. God has the Church. The entire NT is about it. Perhaps you might begin with Matthew.
An unbelievably snide comment from a Christian.
The person is asking where you attend church, as you know, and is using the term "church" in its sense as a local place of worship attended by specific individuals.
So, I'll rephrase the individual's question myself...which church do you attend?
In the conservative Presbyterian and reformed realm, there has been a controversy raging since 2002. In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) the controversy has been especially painful because the Federal Vision teachings have been adopted by a number of pastors and elders, who by their teaching and example, have turned whole congregations away from the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Standards on crucial gospel issues.[1]...
Conclusion
Having briefly considered the OPC Report on Justification, we are compelled to conclude the following. The committee report of the OPC does not recommend that unrepentant Federal Vision teachers and advocates be deposed and censured, which is precisely what the OPC needs. Unless a church officer from the floor alters the recommendation and a motion passes to begin the admonition and censure process, then the report is little more than words that can and will likely be ignored. On the one hand, the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is said to contradict Scripture; but on the other hand, the proponents of this doctrine are tolerated as though it was a non-vital error. This is a scandalous sin, a sin so great that it justifies separation or secession on the part of those who want to be faithful to Scripture.[25] How long are the Truly Reformed (TR) or “conservatives” in the OPC and PCA going to keep on tolerating blatant, serious and even deadly contradictions to Scripture and the Westminster Standards in their communions?[26] If one does not separate from the toleration of damnable heresy, then one is guilty of participating in these scandalous sins. Once we strip away all the excuses, pragmatism, worldly concepts of love, fund raising needs, and bureaucratic maneuvering, we are left with a toleration of a complete repudiation of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption. This toleration of a false gospel is totally unacceptable. How many congregations and families need to be destroyed by heresy before a decision to depart is made? “Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)? There comes a time when the best method of reformation is to protest and secede, with denouncing of jurisdiction. Faithfulness at this hour requires it.
Copyright © Brian Schwertley, 2006
Hmmm, sounds they are chasing the PCUSA rather closely in the race to become as nonChristian as possible. And you are correct in assuming that this tiny little cult is going fragment in the near future. The only question is: how many pieces and how big will be each piece?
An unbelievably snide comment from a Christian.
I have dealt with Iscool for years and we have repeatedly discussed the issue. This is part of a long ongoing conversation on both sides. Thank you for sticking up for him. I'm sure that he appreciates it, and I will include him on the ping line.
The person is asking where you attend church, as you know, and is using the term "church" in its sense as a local place of worship attended by specific individuals.
Again, I have dealt with Iscool for many years. How do you know that that is what he means? Or even what I meant? Did you ask him? Do you have our posting history in order to refer what went on before? Or did you simply jump, uninformed, into the middle of a long term conversation?
So, I'll rephrase the individual's question myself...which church do you attend?
Read my tagline. If you need more instruction, please ask for it, after unwadding your panties first.
No, NOT hubris. Who do you think the "church" is? Some group up in the citadel of the Vatican passing down whatever the peons MUST believe under pain of eternal death? Or is it rather the body of Christ - which is all believers in Jesus Christ? What, I think, is hubris, is to blindly give up your moral responsibility before God to study and know the Scriptures passed down to us all. To swallow what is told to you without checking for yourselves if what is being taught is Scripturally provable is the very definition of hubris because it cedes all control to an organization that defines itself as infallible. It is the lazy man's excuse for knowledge. "Oh, I don't need to know why we believe it, that's just what we believe.". Somehow, I do not think that excuse will fly before God.
Iscool is correct. We are ALL members of the body of Christ. The church is the called-out assembly, the ecclesia. If you are NOT the church, then you are not one of Christ's.
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.