Did Jesus have brothers? Article dealing with the question of whether Mary was always "the Virgin Mary."

[BartholomewB]

You claimed that Catholic doctrine is based on a speculation that Matthew might not be using adelphos to mean full blood brothers. But that’s just not true.

I think everybody here is fully aware that adelphos can legitimately cover stepbrothers and half-brothers.

 

[Gorgias]

I think everybody here is fully aware that adelphos can legitimately cover stepbrothers and half-brothers.

Everyone except one of us…

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Yes, we both agree that the Jewish assertion that Jesus was born from fornication is a spurious lie. That does not prove the perpetual virginity.

(Bold mine)

Hold it Hodos.

I never said it “proves the perpetual virginity”.

I explicitly said the pharisees were attacking a “part” of the doctrine of Blessed Mary’s Perpetual Virginity referring to John 8.

And I stand by that.

Here is what I said (again) . . .

This was one of the five blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary that so outrage our Lord Jesus (as revealed to Sr. Lucia but the ONE that I am discussing
is right here in Scripture at least in part implicitly).

And that is EXACTLY what occurred!

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

So much eisegesis, so little time…

No eisegesis Hodos.

I already mentioned the Closed Gate Prophecy. (That is part if the implicit evidence I discussed.)

The Fathers saw this.

You don’t.

You have provided no evidence for your theological “novum” whatsoever.

“Brothers”?

Absolute non-sense. “Uncle” Abraham and “Nephew” Lot were “brothers” in an ancient Hebrew sense.

In the next few days I am going to put up more. Much more.

I am going to walk-back the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary over the last 2000 years.

This will be in contra-distinction to your DENIAL tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

I have asked you to do the same.

And I KNOW you cannot do it, because your position is a theological INVENTION.

The only “early” anything you will be able to appeal to are heretics.

And I know it, the readers here know it, and I think even YOU know it.

 

[prayerrider]

Incidentally, these same people who deny Mary as a Perpetual Virgin, frequently deny Mary as “Mother of God” too.

Yes they do. All part of the Nestorian heresy package. A package that also, in conclusion, denies the hypostatic union and thus denies the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos (Regarding St. Basil) . . .

he says there is no impact to doctrine and demonstrates that there is ample scriptural evidence to support the opposite claim.

The only problem Hodos is, St. Basil NEVER said anything like this.

He said the Perpetual Viginity was not necessary for the Incarnation of Christ to occur.

Not that it didn’t happen.

Not that the Perpetual Virginity doctrine was an optional item and “ample evidence” against it was found in Scripture.

What you are saying just isn’t true!

 

[Hodos]

I never said it “proves the perpetual virginity”.

No, you didn’t, but it was clearly the implication that you were attempting to make given the topic of this thread and the direction of the conversation.

 

[Hodos]

The only problem Hodos is, St. Basil NEVER said anything like this.

He said the Perpetual Viginity was not necessary for the Incarnation of Christ to occur.

Not that it didn’t happen.

Not that the Perpetual Virginity doctrine was an optional item and “ample evidence” against it was found in Scripture.

What you are saying just isn’t true!

We will just have to agree to disagree my friend. I see plenty of evidence in the plain reading of the text to refute this doctrine, which is why it never should have been declared a dogmatic teaching of the Church. In doing so, the Church created schism over what should have been seen as adiaphora since NONE of the apostles preached this.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

No, you didn’t, but it was clearly the implication that you were attempting to make . . .

No it wasn’t.

The “implication that I was attempting to make”, was exactly what I said.

 

[Hodos]

Yes, you were trying to use Jesus response to the Pharisees in John and apply that against me because I am making an argument that the apostles did not teach what you allege them to teach, subtly implying that I am attacking Mary because I deny the perpetual virginity. Let us make this clear, I am not attacking Mary. Viewing Mary in the light of what the apostles reveal about her in their writings is not an attack upon Mary, nor have I ever intimated that Mary did anything that is immoral. It is only by assuming a tradition that elevates her beyond what the gospel writers communicated about Mary, or denigrates Mary’s earthly marriage, that you could even try to lump me in with the Pharisees that Jesus was responding to. What you are doing is offering an ad hominem attack because you can’t defend your tradition, and mishandling scripture to do so. That’s on your head, not mine.

 

[Cathoholic]

We will just have to agree to disagree my friend. I see plenty of evidence in the plain reading of the text to refute this doctrine, which is why it never should have been declared a dogmatic teaching of the Church. In doing so, the Church created schism over what should have been seen as adiaphora since NONE of the apostles preached this.

But St. Basil is not talking about the doctrine.
He is talking about what limits, the doctrine could have been.

And if you cannot get that from the text, he calls the Blessed Virgin Mary elsewhere “EVER VIRGIN”.

Do YOU affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is . . . ."Ever Virgin?"

Why not? St. Basil does.

Using your reasoning (of appealing to St. Basil), you SHOULD affirm this doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Yes, you were trying to use Jesus response to the Pharisees in John and apply that against me . . .

You are wrong.

You even said you agreed with that part of my point.
(“Yes, we both agree that the Jewish assertion that Jesus was born from fornication is a spurious lie.”)

I thought it interesting Jesus’ reaction to a denial of ONE ASPECT of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Don’t insert “you” into everything I am saying here. These truths go waaay beyond “you”.

 

[Hodos]

Using your reasoning (of appealing to St. Basil), you SHOULD affirm this doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My appeal to Basil is not to say that we have the same belief about Mary, I already conceded that he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I was using his quote to demonstrate that the perpetual virginity was not a unanimous teaching of the Church. Clearly you misread my original comment on the subject.

 

[Hodos]

You even said you agreed with that part of my point.

Yeah, I agree with the fact that Jesus addressed the false charge made by the Jews that he was born of fornication. He called them liars, and they were. Again, this does not remotely address the perpetual virginity of Mary. It addresses the fact that Jesus was born of Mary who was a virgin at the time of his conception, which we both agree upon. The scriptures give clear testimony on this.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

I was using his quote to demonstrate that the perpetual virginity was not a unanimous teaching of the Church.

But he didn’t say that.

And he didn’t imply it.

He was talking about the theoretical theological boundries of how God COULD have worked.

Not what Church doctrine IS.

As a matter of fact he explicitly says elsewhere in the document that people who have a relationship with Jesus (“friends” of Jesus) do NOT DENY Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

You also said he did away with the Perpetual Virginity presumably you think it was from Scripture (as you mistakenly think Christianity has some sort of sola Scriptura paradigm).

But there is absolutely nothing there to suggest that in the quote of St. Basil we were discussing (or anywhere else for that matter).

Here again is what you said . . .

I see plenty of evidence in the plain reading of the text to refute this doctrine, which is why it never should have been declared a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Well so far “plenty” has turned out to be “none”.

And if I hold you to your own sola Scriptura standard, your argument deteriorates even further (as St. Basil never mentioned any passages, nor did he even explicitly mention Scripture in general).

 

[John_Martin]

I was using his quote to demonstrate that the perpetual virginity was not a unanimous teaching of the Church. Clearly you misread my original comment on the subject.

I believe you are not understanding something about the Church - when a Doctrine is put forward by the Church to be believed de fide, it is being declared by the Church that this has been the belief of the Faithful throughout the whole history of the Church (in this case, not only since the time of Mary and Gabriel, but since the time of Isaiah).

Theologians always explore possibilities, with Catholic Theologians asserting that the Church is the one who discerns Truth, by the Holy Spirit.
While theologians may have explored possibilities of meaning with this doctrine, if they had lived to the time when it was explicitly declared, they would have agreed with the Church’s assertion of Faith, and then shown the correct line of thinking that displays the Church’s assertion.

z.B.:
Doctrine: Mary is ever Virgin, therefore:
Correct readings of Scripture among the many readings a person could find:

1. ‘adelphos’ refers to “near Kin”, not exclusively blood sibling, and in the case of Jesus it is not referring at all to blood siblings.
2. ‘heos’ is indicating only pre-birth behavior of Mary and Joseph, and has no inference about postpartum activity.

Since the doctrine is now publicized, all theologians assert as correct only interpretations that support what has been revealed to Faith since the inception of the Church.

Hodos, you are missing the point where you go down on one knee and admit submission to Mother Church, and then rise to do your research to show that Mother Church “is wise in the Wisdom of her Lord.”

John Martin

 

[Hodos]

No, my understanding of dogma is quite clear. What is not clear is the justification of the perpetual virginity, which isn’t declared by Isaiah, or Gabriel, or any of the scriptural witnesses that speak of Mary. Doctrine means teaching. The issue is not whether this is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but whether it is a correct doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Doctrine: Mary is ever Virgin, therefore:
Correct readings of Scripture among the many readings a person could find:

1. ‘adelphos’ refers to “near Kin”, not exclusively blood sibling, and in the case of Jesus it is not referring at all to blood siblings.
2. ‘heos’ is indicating only pre-birth behavior of Mary and Joseph, and has no inference about postpartum activity.

Thank you for demonstrating the very circular nature of this doctrine. The doctrine was declared, therefore we have to read into the text the most unnatural and speculative meaning possible to justify the doctrine. The word 'ews means until. It is a dependent clause that says that some action will continue up to a point where the dependency is fulfilled. In some cases the dependency mentioned after the term “until” is something that is speculative or cannot be fulfilled. I won’t come home until pigs fly. Obviously pigs don’t fly therefore, I won’t be coming home. Other times, the dependent clause is expected to be fulfilled, at which time the action will occur. We won’t go on vacation until the kids get out of school. At that point, the dependency is fulfilled and the action will occur. Matthew 1:25 presents a dependent clause that is expected to be fulfilled, given the fact that they were already engaged, and remain married after the angel told Joseph not to be afraid but to take Mary as his wife. You then have to make the logical leap to defend the doctrine of the perpetual virginity that brother doesn’t mean brother. You have to assume a willfully absurd reading of this clause to take the position that you do. Bottom Line, you would not apply this kind of hermeneutic to any other place in the Bible.

The issue here is that the doctrine you are speaking of is not being derived from the text, the text is being twisted to suit a pre-assumed doctrine.

 

[John_Martin]

my understanding of dogma is quite clear.

If you “understood” dogma, you would bow before the body that speaks the dogma.
You do not understand dogma, but you see, from the outside, a body that believes what is delivered to it by authorized givers.
You are outside trying to invent dogma on your own based on your private conclusions about the best way to read things.
This is like the people at the time of the Judges, who, having no king to give them “law”, did whatever each thought was good in their own reasonings. (So the LORD had to send them Judges to deliver them from the repeated results of their follies.) You have no “king” telling you what is Truth, so you try to define it.

 

[Hodos]

If you “understood” dogma, you would bow before the body that speaks the dogma.

I happily bend my knee to the one to whom every knee shall bow, Christ. I do not however, confuse Christ with sinful man. I subject myself to His Word, and to that Word faithfully proclaimed. I am not however obligated to bow the knee to the unfaithful twisting of that word.

You are outside trying to invent dogma on your own based on your private conclusions about the best way to read things.

Really?

Doctrine: Mary is ever Virgin, therefore:
Correct readings of Scripture among the many readings a person could find:

1. ‘adelphos’ refers to “near Kin”, not exclusively blood sibling, and in the case of Jesus it is not referring at all to blood siblings.
2. ‘heos’ is indicating only pre-birth behavior of Mary and Joseph, and has no inference about postpartum activity.

I am inventing dogma? Interesting. By my count, between the two of us, you are the one declaring a dogmatic de fide belief, not me.

 

[John_Martin]

Doctrine: Mary is ever Virgin, therefore:
Correct readings of Scripture among the many readings a person could find:

1. ‘adelphos’ refers to “near Kin”, not exclusively blood sibling, and in the case of Jesus it is not referring at all to blood siblings.
2. ‘heos’ is indicating only pre-birth behavior of Mary and Joseph, and has no inference about postpartum activity.

“Dogma” (“doctrine”) was the first statement, not an invention “Mary is ever Virgin”.
Then the theologian (faithful) searches through his possible interpretations to find that one does indeed support the inspired (by the Holy Spirit) teaching of the Church, and items 1 & 2 are asserted.
1 & 2 are not dogma - they are the choice of a faithful theologian.

Thomas Aquinas, in the last words attributed to him, showed how a person “bends his knee to the Church” and to Christ, whose body is the Church inspired and animated by his Holy Spirit

If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament. I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written aught erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.