I am very familiar with the one 
whose sole purpose in life seems to be a mosquito. A little Deet will do.
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.
And the way they accept the Unitarian as long as he keeps his mouth shut about his beliefs and keeps thinking he is attacking orthodoxy.
What a sad, deluded fool -- he's heading to the big question-mark in the sky
The legacy of the Reformation is that every man can become his own Pope and create his own doctrine out of thin air or whatever else he wishes to utilize.
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?Certainly the Trinity can be wholly found in scripture and was. The Marian nonesense is totally absent from the original church writings for HUDNREDS OF YEARS.
You don't find this to be monumental?
The Gospel was given once and for all to the saints in the 1st century. The Roman church commands belief in "doctrines" unheard of by Christians for centuries and with the penalty of loss of salvation!
The Roman church has abandoned the Vincentian prescription of "hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,'"
The Roman church even binds mens souls to any future novelties it might see fit to proclaim! The Roman Canon of revelation is still open!
Sola scriptura is an invention of men; so is bibliolatry. Yet if I am not mistaken, you practice both.I "practice" what was well known in the early church, what we now call Sola Scriptura.
Cyril of Jerusalem also practiced it. "Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures" Catechetical Lectures 4.17.
I do not kneel down and pray to the Bible. I do not light candles to the bible. I do not address the Bible as God. There is one God that I pray to.
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)Thanks for your additional info!
It it telling to see supporters of Rome "dying on this hill" in support of non biblical Marian tales that have little to do with the saving Gospel, but everything to do with upholding fabricated myths.
Interesting isn't it?? I guess if you have something to hide you want to ban books and sites.. the secret mystery Babylon religion lives on..
Subordinationist writings completely dominate Scripture in the NT and Trinitarian prose is largely absent. Look at the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's writings, especially.
One of the reasons for Nicea was to button down the Trinitarian formula. A consequence was that Origen's writings were declared heretical by the Council and he was turfed out in disgrace. And he was one of the great Doctors of the Church.
The Marian nonesense is totally absent from the original church writings for HUDNREDS OF YEARS.
When was the Protoevangelium of James written? Hint: not hundreds of years later. The first prayer that we have a parchment of is the Sub Tuum Praesidium from 250 AD or earlier. The term Theotokos was in widespread use not only in Egypt, but around the Christian world.
You don't find this to be monumental?
Indeed I do.
The Gospel was given once and for all to the saints in the 1st century. The Roman church commands belief in "doctrines" unheard of by Christians for centuries and with the penalty of loss of salvation!
The "Roman church" whatever it is invented nothing about Mary. It appears to have developed or at least been in common use in the Egyptian area and spread to the other areas. During the fourth century, the term was already quite popular in the area of Alexandria (St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Serapion of Thmuis, Didymus the Blind), and also in Arabia (Tite of Bostra), in Palestine (Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Cyril of Jerusalem), Cappadocia (St. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Severian of Gabala) and even among the Arians (Asterius the Sophist) (from http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/02/sub-tuum-praesidium.html)
The Roman church has abandoned the Vincentian prescription of "hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,'"
This little diatribe does not do your post well. The only Latin theologian of note listed above is St. Athenasius.
The Roman church even binds mens souls to any future novelties it might see fit to proclaim! The Roman Canon of revelation is still open!
More diatribe? At what point do you want to nail things down? 100 AD? If so, you don't have the Trinity. And you have Hermas and Barnabas in your Scripture. You don't have Jude or 2 Peter. You have subordinationist preaching and a wholesale jettisoning of the OT. Sure you want to go there?
Well - - - they are traditions of men.
It seems that many "Christians", Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, by the "Christian Standard" are Christians in name only.
For example:
Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist
There are some with an orthodox Christian background who have doubts or are troubled by some of the extra-Scriptural dogma's of Christianity and who admit it. There are others, and I do not include you, who I believe go through the motions while not believing a word they say.
In my daily life I would much rather deal with the honest doubters than with a few of the phony liar "Christians" I have met on this forum who troll from post to post, forum to forum, with the same garbage.
When was the Protoevangelium of James written? Hint: not hundreds of years later. The first prayer that we have a parchment of is the Sub Tuum Praesidium from 250 AD
Opinions regarding: Protoevangelium of James:
Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source)
Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't."
[Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5
Why would Roman Catholic authors use apocryphal ravings whose credibility they cannot confirm and which works have been condemned (apparently) by a pope of their church? There are two obvious explanations:
(1) many Roman Catholic apologists have only a passing knowledge of history and the fathers, and
(2) some Roman Catholic apologists simply don't care: if it seems to support Rome's position, it is used.
(3)In some cases, there is a third reason, which is that it is heretical works like the Protoevangelium of James from which, as an historical matter, were the true sources of the Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3441
Subordinationist writings completely dominate Scripture in the NT and Trinitarian prose is largely absent. Look at the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's writings, especially.Do we laugh or cry at these statements? So, the scriptures only lead us to being Arian or some other error???
Another typical attack on scripture by Roman defenders.
We are told that the VERY WORD OF GOD is insufficient and we must believe apocryphal fables, forgeries, and lies starting with the Author who was certainly NOT James. Writings condemned by a Pope, now contain the real truth!!!
Psalm 69 is written by King David, who is writing his earnest prayer to God, based on his own experiences. However, King David prefigures Christ, and so his prayers weren’t mere prayers, but had prophetic significance. However, in transferring the relevance from David to Christ, what was physically real in reference to David becomes spiritually real in reference to Christ:
Whereas David was referring to actual sins, when Psalm 69 is understood as referring to Christ, we must understand that it refers to those sins imputed to him. Likewise, 69:8 (which already uses figurative language) refers not to actual sons of the speakers’ mother, but to the children of Israel, who did not recognize Jesus’ divinity or authority.
James, “the brother of Jesus” is in Luke 6:16 identified as the brother of Jude, (not to be confused with James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John.) James and Jude are “of Alphaeus,” not of Joseph or of Mary or of Bethlehem or of Nazareth or of Capernaum.
Mary of Clophas was “of Alphaeus.” This Mary was the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister (John 19:25). (I always presumed this meant “sister-in-law,” but I’ve been told that sisters then could share a first name.) Hence, we can reasonably know that James and Jude the disciples were in fact first cousins of Jesus.
As for “resorting to typically juvenile insults,” it is ironic that OLD REGGIE is name-calling, posting silly pictures and referring to Cronos’ correct argument as “loud stupidity.”
The "Roman church" whatever it is invented nothing about Mary. It appears to have developed or at least been in common use in the Egyptian area and spread to the other areas. During the fourth century,300 years of silence, then apochryphal forgeries = Marian dogma. Yup, sign me up!
"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56 KJV).
I think that may be misunderstood.
I am very familiar with the one whose sole purpose in life seems to be a mosquito. A little Deet will do.
I agree, it is generally identified as a Psalm of David. I deliberately quoted the Douay Rheims introduction in the hopes that soneone could offer an explanation of the apparent discrepancy in the various "official" Catholic Bibles.
Thank you for your reasoned response. It does not explain; however, how Douay Rheims got it wrong.
Salvum me fac, Deus. Christ in his passion declareth the greatness of his sufferings, and the malice of his persecutors the Jews; and foretelleth their reprobation.
[6] "My foolishness and my offences"... which my enemies impute to me: or the follies and sins of men, which I have taken upon myself.
*********************************************************
As for “resorting to typically juvenile insults,” it is ironic that OLD REGGIE is name-calling, posting silly pictures and referring to Cronos’ correct argument as “loud stupidity.”
OLD REGGIE is too often guilty of "improper" conduct and accepts responsibility for his actions. I will strive, and on occassion, will fail to do better.
As for the "correct argument" I labellled "loud stupidity"; I would appreciate it if you pointed me to the post in question.
I think he's ringing up some sizable purgatory time with each slander :).
There was no church, traditionally...I guess what you mean is that your church from it's beginning continued to face the East to worship the Sun God...And you still do it today...
Eze 8:15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
Eze 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
Eze 8:17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
You can disagree with me all you want but you are disagreeing with God as well...
And here's the Kingdom...
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Oh Oh...Where's your kingdom that flesh and blood can't inherit??? Your and my flesh are corrupt...We can't inherit the Kingdom of God...
So you guys got convinced that the corrupt flesh sittin' on the throne in the vatican is the leader of the Kingdom of God on Earth??? Bible says it can't be...
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
And lookie here...You guys have been totally deceived...There is no physical Kingdom on Earth right now...
Search the scriptures...The scriptures are in condemnation of your religion...
There is no Kingdom of God on Earth right now...Your religion is not the Kingdom of God...The Kingdom is Spiritual, within you and me...
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.