unitarianism -- where no one's idea of God is better than another's...
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.
Umm, might that be *half* brothers or sisters?
And give us the sola scriptura proof for “biblical unitarian universalism”...
unitarianism -- where no one's idea of God is better than another's...
Nice... the Unitarians keep la-di-dahing
interesting. We in The Church believe she was a teenagish girl, so she was alive only maybe 14-19 years "before Jesus showed up" as you so quaintly put it (though I'm not a woman, I'm sure any mother will argue that babies don't just "show up") -- that's what we Christians believe that she was a mortal young girl
now if you want to believe what you stated, ok, that's your choice of religion.
Very good questions. I believe the hope for early Christianity was that it would be very antinomian, per Galatians. It did not take long to see that the sinful nature was by no means crushed by the New Covenant, and some rules were necessary.
I would still say that circumcision of the heart is basic and the only needed requirement for salvation, and everything else is the rules of the organization, whether for preaching with authority or for membership.
My basis for that is simplicity of Christ’s own mandate that we must be born again, and the observation that the studious in every church group ignore things about their own denominations routinely.
The Holy Spirit will lead us into truth (in his own sweet time -- Mad Dawg gloss).
I like this.
I am gestating a meditation (as part of my famed Veritas series, soon to me a major motion picture) on Veritas et Fides. The image that I cannot escape is this. Take two tuning forks of the same pitch. Strike one. Soon the other will vibrate as well. The first is Truth (who is a person, not a proposition). The second is faith.
and the gift is (a) exogenous and (b)inexplicable (though not indescribable.) One just discovers a, what, an openness. And, if one is at all smart, one is grateful for it, and them TO Him who gave it.
But (papist tug at the sleeve coming up) that doesn't make one a teacher.
A pleasure to exchange thoughts with you this ridiculously humid day.
Nonsense. When the Bible mentions that Joseph did not "know" his wife, Mary until after such & such a time, it did not mean that they were getting a new introduction and shaking hands. Sorry people, the Virgin Mary was only the Virgin until after Jesus was born. Jesus was Mary's eldest son, but not Joseph's. I'm sure the Bible would have mentioned if Mary was a 2nd or 3rd wife.
It implies that her other children were NOT the eldest son. It was Jesus' position as the eldest in the Jewish home to take care of His mother. Most likely He had John do it because 1) John was a nephew of Mary's 2)Jesus' brothers, who thought Jesus a nut, had scattered to the four winds & did not yet believe in Him as the Christ -- see James and Jude; therefore, Jesus was not going to leave Mary's care to them. We don't know how much younger they were than Jesus, there could have been sisters in between.
You can't. It doesn't exist.
In fact, we know who the father of James and Joses are from Scripture; his name is Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). We know also that James and Judas (not the Iscariot) were not really blood brothers, but father and son (Acts 1:13).
Those are facts we can actually establish from Scripture. The idea that James was the son of Mary the mother of Jesus, is not.
There were two James--James the brother of Jesus and James, the son of Alpheaus. Father & son, from whence did you get THAT fairytale?
No, it doesn't. It tells us that Jesus did not think them able to care for Mary, their mother. They could have been too young, too rash, too unbelieving. His brothers probably were miles away from the crucifixion. They came to belief late.
Take two tuning forks of the same pitch. Strike one. Soon the other will vibrate as well. The first is Truth (who is a person, not a proposition). The second is faith.
and the gift is (a) exogenous and (b)inexplicable (though not indescribable.) One just discovers a, what, an openness. And, if one is at all smart, one is grateful for it, and them TO Him who gave it.
_________________________________
Amen. That analogy brought tears to my eyes. I am appropriating it for evangelical purposes immediately. Thanks.
Um, I mean, of course, Deo gratias!
This was a traditional one where parents, grandparents etc. lived together and it was the duty of the FAMILY to take care of their widows etc.
Mary was a widow. Jesus Christ was her Son
If the eldest son dies, then the next older son has the responsibility to take care of the mother. If no sons then the next older daughter
But you do not now in Semitic societies nor especially then in Semitic societies give the responsibility to your friend if you have any other blood siblings
That is so against whatever a traditional Jew would have done, it is unthinkable for Christ, a true Jew to have done that.
Whether they were "rash or unbelieving" doesn't matter, they still have their responsibility and the eldest son can't "skip over" them.
They could not have been "too young" because Jesus was 33 and the coming of age was 13, so are you saying Jesus had teenage siblings?
You do realise that your line of thinking ultimately leads to the same false dichtomy as Dan Brown?
If an eldest son dies, the other children HAD to take care of their widowed mother -- check out even traditional societies like India today -- the same thing.
The Eldest Son takes care of the mother, then the next eldest son, etc. then the daughters -- in order. To bypass this is not something Jesus would do. Ergo, he had no other brothers or sister by Mary.
In a traditional society like that of Israel 2000 years ago, like the Semitic world today, the eldest son does not give the custody of the widowed mother to a stranger if there are younger brothers or sisters.
That is not done
Stop looking at things through the prism of today and see how a different culture in a different time did things
John Calvin (Sermon on Matthew)
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."Now that's one thing I can agree with Calvin about....
Even Spanish is a relatively simplified language, compared to the Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew -- English for instance does not have cases such as Gentive, Nominative, Dative, Locative, Instrumental, Vocative or Accusative and does not have gender assigned to inanimate objects
brother has shades of meaning because Aramaic and other Semitic languages do not differentiate between a blood brother/sister and a cousin or other
For example
The NT was written in Greek, ok -- not all, but let's take your argument for the sake of argument. Remember also that the words of Jesus were mostly Aramaic or Hebrew or maybe even GReek -- we've already shown that in SEmitic languages like Aramaic/hebrew there is no differntiating term between a blood brother and a cousin, let's examine the GReek ouch outos estin o tekton o uios Marias adelphos de Iakobou Iose kai Iouda kai Simonos
If the term is that the adelphoi have the same mother then it would be ho adelphos But that is not used. Without the article adelphos is non-specific and non-exclusive and can mean kinsmen, relatives
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.