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.
Good point. Mary is the wife of God, but the mother of God, a child of God but also a sister of God?
Lousy point. Scripture says that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That is wife. Scripture says that Mary gave birth to Jesus. That is mother. Mary was born in the Jewish faith and believed. That is child. The sister idea is only for those who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That is non Christian. Do you know anything about that, Iscool?
Enough to realize that you refuse to recognize what is actually in the Bible - sheer numbers of quotations should be proof enough.
The council that "defined" the trinity only put in formal writing what was already written throughout the Bible and believed by the church. Jesus had a subordinational role only so far as his humanity and his mission determined. You cannot deny that both the OT and the NT including the Gospels and the epistles teach over and over that Jesus IS God in the flesh. Since we do not worship multiple gods - because there only is one true God -- then if Jesus is God then he is equal to God Almighty. It didn't take a council hundreds of years to "decide" that God was a triune God. It was in Scripture all along.
Umm, there are still less non-subordinationist verses in the Bible than subordinationist ones - and that is after the editing of the first few centuries. The addition to Matthew is one of the better known ones.
If Jesus is subordinate to God then follow the example given that the woman submits to her husband as her husband submits to Christ as Christ submits to God. Scripture says there is no male or female in Christ but that we are all equal. So Christ is also equal to God. Any subordination was as it concerned position and purpose. It does not mean that Jesus was not God.
Your analogy is not quite as good as it might be, however, it seems that I was unable to convince you, either, that I am not a subordinationist. I fully accept the Christian Trinitarian belief - better than most Protestants, as it seems. Look at the heresies being promoted even here on FR.
Finally, how much longer will you cling to the distrust of Holy Scripture? You have been reading the wrong books or websites if you presume we can have no confidence in the authorship of the Scriptures. Read this and get back to me.
I have no distrust of the Scriptures. You persist in misunderstanding me on yet another point. I have confidence in the Scriptures.
I read through your source. It is labeled: "Basic Issues in Defense of the Authenticity of the Gospels"
Let us see what wisdom is prated here...
Actually, I am surprised that you would even consider offering this up as defence. The author(s) simply offer up irrelevant strawmen more suited to answering unbelievers and even then don't do a good job. They state at the beginning the analogy of the example of Tacitus, going into elaborate detail, and somehow this proves that information on the Gospels, from source to source to tradition, is quite justified.
Were I not a believer, I would use this website as evidence that (at least Protestant) Christianity was mere bunk. As a Christian, I could only say that this site merely offers more evidence to the enemies of the Faith, using the analogy that Obama the American President is the best evidence that this country has to vote Republican.
Actually, you couldn't be. I never said that.
So was Matthew 28:19. So was 1 John 5:7. So was Mark 16:9-20. How about the whole of John 21? And a whole raft of others. Do you admit it or not? If yes, then I admire your willingness to grasp what is. If not, then what?
AND yet this apochryphal fabrication is BELIEVED more than the actual WORD of GOD!
You haven't been paying attention, have you? The Gospels are considered the pinnacle of God's revelation to man. The rest of the NT is seen through the prism of the Gospels and OT. The OT is seen through the New. As a matter of fact, for several hundred years, the OT was thought to be spurious and not necessarily for early Christians. It took the Councils to bring them back into general acceptance.
Actually you didn't. And I gave you the verses which say that the office was given to Peter. I might add that the example of Joseph in Genesis 21 is relevant, as is:
Isaiah 21: 20 5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; 24 7 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
Do you think that Jesus was familiar with Genesis and Isaiah?
You're admitting me? Does that mean I get to sit in the LaZBoy Throne in the Hall of Sunday Sports Theology at least once?
I don't do sports...I do Bible
With the same knowledge and ability?
You should try it sometime...
I don't try pagan copies of Christianity; I do Christian. There is a difference.
The Apostles and the Disciples gave us the scriptures orally when they were taught them from God and then in written form when the Disciples put their teaching to papyrus...
Now, now, quit waffling. Which Apostles gave us the Scriptures and when? Name and year, please, since you are apparently expert.
Sure, at Councils such as Nicea, Constantinople and Hippo.
No, long before that...God had nothing to do with your man made councils...
Who, where and when, please.
We have a written record of what the Apostles taught and they didn't teach anything like your religion puts out
Izzat so? Okay, then. What was everything that Peter taught? Everything that Paul taught? Everything that James, and Thomas and Jude and everyone else? Come on, name the texts of everything that they taught.
That's how we know yours is not the real church...We have the written record...
Really? The originals? Please produce them, oh keeper of the ages.
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore no man shall enter it. Ezekial 44:1
So what???
The difference between Christian and non Christian.
You don't believe in the Christian God as decreed in Nicea, you don't approve of the Theotokos, you don't believe in the Eucharist. If you don't mind me asking, just what makes you Christian?
Jesus Christ does...There's absolutely nothing I, you, or anyone else could do to become a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, the church...
If you don't believe in the Jesus Christ of Christianity, then what makes you less of a non Christian than the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?
I've already passed the test...Jesus stamped an A on my paper and I didn't even have to take the test...I'm good to go...
Not even Paul 'knew' that he was saved. I guess that you are extra special.
Probably won't get much in the way of rewards...I'm running the race for the rewards but I stumble over the hurdles quite a bit...
So, eternal salvation is not enough for you guys? You are looking for rewards like a seal doing tricks at Sea World and getting herring? It says that the eternal reward of men is that they will be in the presence of Almighty God forever, not that they will be fed herring out of a bucket.
It gets rather nuts when non Christians attempt to apply Christian terms to their theology.
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore no man shall enter it. Ezekial 44:1
Applause. I had forgotten about that verse. Very applicable.
Christological definitions have been around for 1700 years So what???
The difference between Christian and non Christian.
You don't believe in the Christian God as decreed in Nicea, you don't approve of the Theotokos, you don't believe in the Eucharist. If you don't mind me asking, just what makes you Christian?
Jesus Christ does...There's absolutely nothing I, you, or anyone else could do to become a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, the church...
If you don't believe in the Jesus Christ of Christianity, then what makes you less of a non Christian than the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?
I've already passed the test...Jesus stamped an A on my paper and I didn't even have to take the test...I'm good to go...
Not even Paul 'knew' that he was saved. I guess that you are extra special.
Probably won't get much in the way of rewards...I'm running the race for the rewards but I stumble over the hurdles quite a bit...
So, eternal salvation is not enough for you guys? You are looking for rewards like a seal doing tricks at Sea World and getting herring? It says that the eternal reward of men is that they will be in the presence of Almighty God forever, not that they will be fed herring out of a bucket.
It gets rather nuts when non Christians attempt to apply Christian terms to their theology.
You'll find the oldest bible extant is now the Latin Vulgate, (the official bible of the Catholic Church). Saint Jerome, (or just Jerome to you apostates), had access to the Hebrew and Green originals when he and his team of scholars traveled to Jerusalem to assemble a Bible, once and for all time, that could be considered "inspired". The "apocrapha", the false gosples, (such as the gospel of Thomas, etc, and the questionable epistles were eliminated. It took over 20 years labor to complete a Bible that could be relied upon as "infallible Scripture". Since the Latin Vulgate was written word-for-word from the Greek and Hebrew originals, you must defer to the Vulgate for the oldest, closet to the actual times, version of sacred scripture. (though there are some partial pages extant that are older than the Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate remains the oldest and most reliable Bible on earth, thanks to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
In his book "Confessions", (or perhaps it was City of God, I'm not sure), St. Augustine, who lived during the time of St. Jerome wrote this about the Latin Vulgate. "The Jews themselves were impressed by its accuracy"; and so was Saint Augustine equally impressed, and Augustine is one of several of the greatest Christian scholars to ever live.
Indeed, a point i have often made, as well as needing some interpretation and the understanding of them being fallible. Scripture and the power of God are what the Sadducees missed, and it is the attestation of Scripture and the power of God that it provides for that the apostles persuaded souls by, that being the manifestation of the truth. (2Cor. 4:2) And we need more of God and less of us today.
Yeah, younger, older, whatever, same theory refuted by St. Jerome.
However, I did not state this in my post #869. James - older or younger than Jesus?
Bad link, yes you did.
Further, if James was older than Jesus he would have accompanied his parents to the Passover...That is, assuming James was not so much older he was no longer with the immediate family. This leaves the whole nuther problem of the "much older James and his brothers accompanying Mary during Jesus' ministry.And who cares: Older, younger, twins... James is not the blood brother of Jesus. Read the linked refutation of Helvidius and modern-day Helvidians.
I stated no theory.
Your theory is the same as Helvidius: James was the blood brother of Jesus. Refuted clearly by St. Jerome.
Past that, I'm not interested in playing wack-a-mole.
I agree. Thank you.
Sorry my analogies don't meet your standards, but I thought they made an adequate point in the context of what we were speaking about. I am glad to hear you do not hold "subordinationalist" beliefs. However, my point was that the early Christians did not need the council of Nicea to figure it out for them and put it into writing. They had the Scriptures as well as the teachings of the Apostles, so they believed in the truth of the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead long before Nicea.
I have no distrust of the Scriptures. You persist in misunderstanding me on yet another point. I have confidence in the Scriptures.
Again, glad to hear that. So why do you feel the need to post such things as:
Dude, show me proof who wrote the four Gospels. Show me proof who wrote Jude. Show me who the various Johns were. Prove to me Peter wrote both of his epistles. And while you are at it, prove that Paul actually wrote more than half of the books attributed to him.
Finally, I can tell by your response that you probably did not bother to read the article at the link. It discussed far more things than Tacitus. But seeing as you declare that you fully trust the Scriptures and have complete confidence in them, the point is moot. However, I would suggest you go back and read the whole article, if even just for "grins". There is a lot there.
So do we, but you don't have to read far on these threads to see that the same heresies they fought then still exist.
Why do so many of your explanations talk about sex???? ;o)
You may have touched on my question at the corners but the central point, not so much. I understand the situation I may have put you in so do not worry about addressing something that would make you uncomfortable to come out and say. You are a kind and gentle man who is gifted with the ability to teach in a non-condemning way. It is appreciated.
I guess what I was looking for is a plausible explanation for why complete obedience to a dogma is mandatory for a Catholic in order to go to heaven when the dogmas are not scriptural nor are they considered even by the Catholic Church to be mandatory beliefs for other Christians for their salvation. In the example I gave of the necessity of belief in the deity of Jesus Christ for salvation, I was not speaking of those who are unable to understand the doctrine - such as mentally disabled or those too young. I was speaking of the person who is able yet refuses to. When Jesus said to the pharisees that unless they believed that he was the "I AM" (the personal name of God/Jehovah) they would "die in their sins", it sure sounds like a nonnegotiable belief. If Jesus is NOT God incarnate, then he could not be the Messiah nor could he be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Let me just say that I understand your points about "mortal" sins vs. venial and I get the idea you are trying to express about a "good" Catholic not being in rebellion against the magesterium so therefore accepting of all their dogmas (dogmata you say???). But I don't believe in levels of sin since even so much as a lie will keep us from seeing God and that is why the sacrifice of Christ is our ONLY hope of heaven. His blood paid the penalty of ALL our sins - minors or biggies. That is why I do not see why the Magesterium saw such an imperative to make unscriptural dogmas about Mary MANDATORY articles of faith under penalty of HELL. If they had made them "pious" beliefs only, I could understand, but I think they went too far, way too far, and this is why we will always disagree on this issue. It's almost like whoever posts such threads is asking for a stiff, unresolvable debate that will be guaranteed to devolve into a flame war, no matter which "side" posts the OP.
Again, thank you for your generous spirit. It would be wonderful if that virtue would rub off on us all.
No, Mary is NOT the spouse/wife of God - nowhere in Scripture is she EVER referred as that. If that were true, she AND Joseph would be bigamists. Mary cannot be the wife of God AND the mother of God. Do you understand that point? The sister part is along the idea of all Christians being joint heirs with Christ, it has nothing whatsoever to do with denying the deity of Jesus. Must there be arguments about EVERYTHING Iscool says???
No, Mary is NOT the spouse/wife of God - nowhere in Scripture is she EVER referred as that. If that were true, she AND Joseph would be bigamists. Mary cannot be the wife of God AND the mother of God. Do you understand that point? The sister part is along the idea of all Christians being joint heirs with Christ, it has nothing whatsoever to do with denying the deity of Jesus. Must there be arguments about EVERYTHING Iscool says???
People are so totally cool and God's love is so overpoweringly amazing, that if there was only one people, Jesus would have come to save him.
So, by God's generous grace, I tend to like people, and to like their questions.
If I seem to be dodging the question, please hold my feet to the fire. If I need patience, I will ask for it.
In Herman Hesse's "Magister Ludi" ("Master of the Game", also, "Das Glasperlenspiel") the protagonist had the wonderful grace of, when he was stumped in a question, saying, "I will need time to think about that."
If we are about truth and not about winning, we will not be ashamed to ask for time to think.
As for "Why do I talk about sex all the time?" my answer is, "There's something else to talk about?" ;-)
But seriously: the energy in these discussions is because something even more wonderful than a lover has captured our hearts. And, even though I am a kind of amateur theologian, I am still eager to say that knowing anatomy is one thing, and making love is quite another. We share a burning love for our saving Lord, the tortured God. We would fight less if we remembered that we share that love and that that love is a thousand times more important than our efforts to say something coherent about it.
But again, it's late, and I will try to be coherent in the morning. No guarantees though ....
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.