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.
Thanks much for the ping :)
Garden Girl at Running from Babylon has some interesting comments, I check her site once in a while.
http://www.runningfrombabylon.blogspot.com/
yet, that is your reasoning.
you said, Lera: The "----" has an old history and all the nations of the earth were drunken in "---" -- you can add in any title like King of Kings, Lord of Lords, El, etc. and these were titles given to old pagan gods as well ---> does this mean that your group,Lera, would consider Jesus a pagan god because of titles given that are similar to pagan gods titles?
-- now this occured 500+ years before Christ and only 500+ years after Nebuchadnezzar and Xerxes are given the title "King of Kings", Christ is given this
your posts say that just because a title was used by a pagan god, that person getting the title is a pagan god, so hence I ask you Why does your group believe that if Jesus is given a title that was once used by a Pagan God/King, that automatically means in your group's opinion that Jesus is a pagan God? -- that's flawed reasoning. desist from it
Lera: The "----" has an old history and all the nations of the earth were drunken in "---" -- you can add in any title like King of Kings, Lord of Lords, El, etc. and these were titles given to old pagan gods as well ---> does this mean that your group,Lera, would consider Jesus a pagan god because of titles given that are similar to pagan gods titles?
So, does one say that because we use the term "God of Light" for Jesus, Jesus is some kind of pagan god?
Just because there were pagan gods who used the same title? Really?
Lera: He is KING OF KINGS
Wait -- Daniel 2:37 addressed to Nebuchadnezzar 37Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. -- shock! Jesus is given a title that was once used by a PAGAN king!
does this mean that in such logic (and this is a question mind you), that Jesus is a pagan god.
Lera: He is KING OF KINGS
Wait -- Osiris, the Egyptian God from 2000 BC was called King of Kings -- shock! Jesus is given a title that was once used by a PAGAN king!
does this mean that in such logic as in your post that Jesus is a pagan god?
Lera: He is LORD OF LORDS
Wait -- Osiris, the Egyptian God from 2000 BC was called "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again" -- shock! Jesus is given a title that was once used by a PAGAN god!
does this mean that in such logic as in your post that Jesus is a pagan god? Just because the titles are the same?
Post 817, where I quote the Running from Babylon article, reference ping.
Read the Egyptian book of the dead
Especially here, the Hymn to Osiris
For your edification, the hieroglyphs translate as O my Lord who passes eternity repeatedly, he who shall endure everlastingly, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Sovereign and Horus of Horuses.
To ME and to all of orthodoxy, we say "Big deal, the same title used", but to Lera's post which says "Pagan title used means the person is a pagan deity", this shows that her post has flawed logic
1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
Old Reggie, would you give us the "biblical unitarian's" way of giving proof for unitarianism using sola scriptura?
Lera — why does your group,Lera, consider Jesus a pagan god because of titles given that are similar to pagan gods titles?
What about the term "El" or "Baal"? Don't you know that "Baal" means "Lord" -- so according to your group's twisted logic, your group says that Jesus = Baal!
Don't you know that Lord is a translation of Baal -- so according to your group's twisted logic, that if a pagan title is used, then the person getting that title IS a pagan deity --> your group says that Jesus = Baal!
The Lord, God, Jehovah, no matter what your group thinks, is not the same as Baal
We and the Jews may use the term "El" but that does not mean, as your group's logic portrays, that YHWH is the same as the Canaanite god El
Do tell your sect to throw away the false logic that Jesus is a pagan God just because He was given the same titles as them..
the cult's logic that Jesus is a pagan god because He was given titles earlier used by pagan gods/kings is a false logic of your cult. Give up this false cult and come to Christ, come to orthodoxy.
I know you already responded to this, though some see it not, but if i may add that as far i know there is not official RC interpretation of this, and it is estimated that only a few verses of Scripture have beenb “infallibly” defined, while the doctrinal paramenters of RCs have much liberty
the Biblical norm is that seldom is all of a section prophetic in which a prophecy is found, and if v. 5 disallows v. 8 from speaking of Christ, then it would follow that v. 9 is also not prophetic of Christ, which explains why the subject was rejected by his brethren.
And thus Jn. 2:17, which quotes Ps. 69:a, cannot be prophetic of Christ either, though the same gospel also records that “His own received Him not,” “neither did His own brethren believe in Him.” (Jn. 1:11; 7:5)
Nor can Rm. 15:3, which quotes 69b as applying to Christ.
In addition, while Catholics lack the extensive Scripture commentaries of evangelical, the conservative Catholic Haydock commentary applies Ps. 69:8 to Christ as well, Ver. 9. Mother. This might be true with respect to some apostate Jews. But it was more fully accomplished in Christ, who was betrayed by Judas, &c. (Calmet) -— His own received him not, John i. (Berthier)
REALLY? And Psalm 69 just 2 verses before your excerpt says
5O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.So, if this is supposed to be Jesus, are you, bkaycee, saying that Jesus sinned? why? Why do you say that? Christianity says Jesus was without sin -- don't you believe that?
An unsupported legend, hardly verifiable truth
Any more unverifiable as to the identity of the Gospel writers?
Mariology is woven into the Church's history and was integral to the early Church.
The early church is totaly silent on the various Marian heresies for the first 400 years or so years until the apocharyphal pagan transitus Marie writings appear and are condemned by the Church but later brought in. See 2 Pet 2
You have not answered my previous post in which I gave the example of the development and the declaration of the Trinitarian formulation which departed from earlier beliefs of the Church which were largely subordinationist. If the Trinity is valid, then why not this? It was declared by the same authority. Or do you claim the ability to pick and choose Christian doctrines with greater authority than the Ecumenical Councils?
The evidence is entrirely lacking to support any of your assertions. The entire NT does not record Mary playing any active part in the NT church! No one is praying to Her! She is not sitting on a throne, anywhere. She is not dispensing "grace" to anyone! She is not performing miracles. She is not part of the Apostolic ministry in ANY way!
The parts that Mary played were in the birth and raising of Christ, the intervention at Cana, the witnessing of the Crucifixion, and in the upper room at Pentecost.
Unfortunately, the church allowed heresy to influence her and let Mary became a focus for all sorts of nonsense 500 YEARS after the Biblical events occured! See the reference by Jesus about traditions of men.
Sola scriptura is an invention of men; so is bibliolatry. Yet if I am not mistaken, you practice both.
True. I had thought that I had seen everything posted before, but to make the claim that that poster did that he did not believe what he believed was priceless.
Art Bell would be proud of you.
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.