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

[Hodos]

“Dogma” (“doctrine”) was the first statement, not an invention “Mary is ever Virgin”.

No, Matthew 1 was the “First Statement,” and nowhere did Matthew declare the perpetual virginity. Nor did, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, etc.

 

[John_Martin]

You do not know the Church - if the Church (via Council, etc.) declares a dogma, then that declaration is evidence that it has always been known by the faithful, at least implicitly.
Thus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Mary, Jesus, Isaiah, all knew that Mary was ever Virgin, though no one needed to explicitly explain it to anyone in their time because all already knew it.
And when we conclude “OH, that is why Matthew knew it - he was understanding ‘adelphos’ as referring to all male kinfolk,” then we are returning to the mindset that knows without having to be explicitly corrected with Doctrine. When we read as Matthew wrote, then we know doctrine implicitly also, and say, “Well, of Course…” when we see the dogma written.
Don’t you wonder how all of us on this topic show allegiance to the ruling of the Church, and turn our attention to the “one translation” rather than to the others? We are obliged, willingly obliged, delightfully obliged to uphold this translation over any other, because we know it is the true one.

 

[Hodos]

You do not know the Church - if the Church (via Council, etc.) declares a dogma, then that declaration is evidence that it has always been known by the faithful, at least implicitly.

Again, another circular argument assumed, not proven from the writings of the apostles themselves.

 

[John_Martin]

John_Martin:

You do not know the Church - if the Church (via Council, etc.) declares a dogma, then that declaration is evidence that it has always been known by the faithful, at least implicitly.

Again, another circular argument assumed, not proven from the writings of the apostles themselves.

A Coincidence: are there such? I was just reading and this paragraph appeared:

We must check the inspirations that come to us in the depths of our own conscience against the revelation that is given to us with divinely certain guarantees by those who have inherited in our midst the place of Christ’s Apostles - by those who speak to us in the Name of Christ and as it were in His own Person. Qui vos audit me audit; qui vos spernit, me spernit.
Thomas Merton: The Seven Storey Mountain: Part Two: One

People consider us insane when we incline our ears and listen and believe this in-person revelation of the living Magisterium.

 

[Cathoholic]

Two Thousand year Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary walk-back #1

(I did the homework so you readers don’t have to. More to follow.)

Mary’s virginity

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147

497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150

498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark’s Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus’ virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence."153

 

[Cathoholic]

Two Thousand year Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary walk-back #2

(I did the homework so you readers don’t have to. More to follow.)

Mary - "ever-virgin"

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos , the “Ever-virgin”.156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

Mary’s virginal motherhood in God’s plan

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm . 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" ( Lk 1:38).

511 The Virgin Mary "cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.

 

[LeoMoch]

My Brother In Christ and Mary I am sorry I couldnt get in touch with you on Friday since I was in Washington for the March Life. However here I am gladly to hear from you and know how you are doing?

Leonardo Mocha

 

[Gorgias]

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.

So, on one hand, we have Hodos’ “plain reading of the text”, and on the other, the teaching authority of the Church, granted by Jesus Himself. Hmm… which should we go with…

the Church created schism over what should have been seen as adiaphora since NONE of the apostles preached this.

How do you know that? All you can say is “it isn’t in the Bible”. That’s a far cry from “none of the apostles preached this.” It’s just not part of the ‘biography’ of Jesus that we find in the Gospels, and (as Basil preached) not strictly necessary for the teaching of the Incarnation found there.

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.

And just as you believe that your personal interpretation of the Bible is without error, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. So… there’s that.

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.

No, not circular – it moves in one direction only. The doctrine clarifies the proper interpretation of the text. The text doesn’t ‘justify’ the doctrine, per se.

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.

Right. And that’s the end of it. No “and therefore, here’s what happens afterward”… just “up till this point.” When you claim “at that point the dependency is fulfilled and the action will occur”, you’re talking about common usage of the English preposition until, not the Koine Greek preposition heos. That’s why your “plain interpretation of the text” fails – it depends on your 21st century American English sensibilities…

There are many other instances in which heos is used, and which do not imply a change after the referenced time.

Again, another circular argument assumed, not proven from the writings of the apostles themselves.

Again, despite your breast-beating and pleas to the contrary, your sole standard is “proven from Scripture”. Catholics don’t see Scripture as the sole source of teaching (after all, John tells us that Jesus taught more that was never recorded, and we know that the apostles spent three years with Jesus, night and day, hearing Him teach and receiving personal teaching as well). Any claim that “the apostles never taught that” is, on its very face, specious.

 

[John_Martin]

When you claim “at that point the dependency is fulfilled and the action will occur”, you’re talking about common usage of the English preposition until , not the Koine Greek preposition heos . That’s why your “plain interpretation of the text” fails – it depends on your 21st century American English sensibilities…

Perhaps Hodos is not investigating usages before speaking:
A quick survey of Matthew shows in Chpt 11:12, as one instance where what happened “until” continued even after the “until” was reached. There are many others; the internet makes it simple to research and find all of them.

ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάνου τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν.

And a quick review of the Septuagint shows Lot’s relationship to Abraham (Gen 14:14) using adelphos as nephew (but better would be “kin”, however we know from an earlier chapter the parentage of Lot, which matches our use of the word “nephew”, so in English we say “nephew”, but ONLY because we saw that parentage. Otherwise we would say, “kin”, not “brother”.):

14 ἀκούσας δὲ Αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται Λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἠρίθμησεν τοὺς ἰδίους οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ τριακοσίους δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ καὶ κατεδίωξεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἕως Δαν

This is tiring - proving to someone who won’t listen to the data. I feel like I may be in Washington.

(edit to do Gen 14:14 - verse 12 was mistake in trying to do it all to quickly)

 

[GladTidings]

This is tiring - proving to someone who won’t listen to the data. I feel like I may be in Washington.

That is pretty funny, and timely. I have enjoyed reading what you and @Cathoholic, and @Gorgias have been using as counter points. Do you have a cache of typical responses in a notebook somewhere, or have you been arguing with people so long it is almost second nature?

As far as why someone won’t listen to data, it is because they cannot release pride, (especially if they are clearly brilliant, in the plain reading of their posts, as read by me), or fear. If the Catholic, (with a capital C as some say) Church is correct, then what? Then they would need to become Catholic, and have ten kids, and worship Mary, and the Saints, and the pope, and commit blasphemy during Mass, etc.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you have a cache of typical responses in a notebook somewhere, or have you been arguing with people so long it is almost second nature?

When you engage in apologetics, you get to know the questions and the answers, and (although I won’t call it “arguing with people”), it does kinda become ‘second nature’ …

 

[TNMan]

You can count this Lutheran as believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jesus giving her away to John pretty much makes this clear.

 

[Hodos]

How do you know that? All you can say is “it isn’t in the Bible”. That’s a far cry from “none of the apostles preached this.”

We know what they did say, and what the Catholic Church preaches about this doctrine is at odds with what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote. That should be enough to settle the issue. Again, I think I have said this to you in multiple forums, the issue isn’t so much that the apostles didn’t address a topic, the issue is that they did and you reject it for your tradition.

 

[Gorgias]

We know what they did say, and what the Catholic Church preaches about this doctrine is at odds with what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote.

No, you only know what the evangelists wrote. And John tells us that there was much more – which they would have witnessed! – and which they would have preached, even if it didn’t end up in Scripture.

That should be enough to settle the issue.

Yes, it should be. Yet, you persist in your notion that everything to be found in Apostolic teaching is found solely in the Bible.

 

[Hodos]

No, you only know what the evangelists wrote. And John tells us that there was much more – which they would have witnessed! – and which they would have preached, even if it didn’t end up in Scripture.

Precisely. We know what they wrote, and what they wrote is perspicuous. So where tradition is in contrast with the plain meaning of what they wrote, I am not bound by conscience to accept what someone else declared a hundred or eighteen hundred years later.

 

[Gorgias]

We know what they wrote, and what they wrote is perspicuous.

Could you write that a little more clearly, please? You’re not speaking plainly.

So where tradition is in contrast with the plain meaning of what they wrote

And yet, we’ve demonstrated that the plain meaning of heos is not what you say it is. In other words, tradition is in accord with the meaning of Scripture. You just don’t want to accept it. (That’s a dynamic we see in the Bible, too, by the way. )

, I am not bound by conscience to accept what someone else declared a hundred or eighteen hundred years later.

So… you’re not bound to accept Nicaea? Or the Creed? Or the declarations of Christ’s divinity and of the Trinity? I mean, there were folks who made the same claims that you’re making here – that the “plain meaning” of Scripture led them to believe that the Church was mistaken in her doctrinal pronouncements. Today, we call them “heretics”. Why should we believe your personal take on Scripture?

 

[Hodos]

And yet, we’ve demonstrated that the plain meaning of heos is not what you say it is. In other words, tradition is in accord with the meaning of Scripture. You just don’t want to accept it. (That’s a dynamic we see in the Bible, too, by the way. )

Yes, and I have provided the common sense answer to that unnatural reading of the text. You just don’t want to accept it.

So… you’re not bound to accept Nicaea? Or the Creed? Or the declarations of Christ’s divinity and of the Trinity? I mean, there were folks who made the same claims that you’re making here – that the “plain meaning” of Scripture led them to believe that the Church was mistaken in her doctrinal pronouncements. Today, we call them “heretics”. Why should we believe your personal take on Scripture?

I have always been very clear in saying that I confess the Nicene, Apostle’s and Athanasian Creeds because they are correct expositions of scripture. Where the Church teaches rightly in accord with what was handed down by the apostles, I gladly bend the knee. I just reject the innovation you are introducing with regard to this specific Marian dogma that none of the apostles can yet be demonstrated to have taught.

Why should we believe your personal take on Scripture?

Why should I believe your personal take on scripture? Again, the perpetual virginity is not demonstrable from scripture. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the apostles taught this doctrine from their hand. Otherwise, what you are trying to enforce is the private interpretation of someone who came a hundred, two hundred years later, primarily using proto-gnostic documents to provide a written account of this doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, and I have provided the common sense answer to that unnatural reading of the text. You just don’t want to accept it.

“Common sense” doesn’t work when you’re dealing with prepositions and foreign languages. Ask anybody who’s ever studied a foreign language. Better yet, listen to a person speak whose native language isn’t English. You’ll hear “common sense” errors in prepositions all the time. (Then, think about what you sound like when you’re speaking a foreign language to native speakers of that language! )

they are correct expositions of scripture. Where the Church teaches rightly in accord with what was handed down by the apostles

And you’re the judge of ‘correct expositions’? You’re the judge of ‘right teaching’? Who gave you that authority, by the way? 'Cause, from where I’m sitting, that was given to Peter and the apostles, not you or me.

Why should I believe your personal take on scripture?

That’s the whole point. It’s not my personal take – it’s the take of the successors of the Apostles, who were given that authority, ultimately, by Christ Himself.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that the apostles taught this doctrine from their hand.

No; I can show that it was taught by their successors, who were likewise given authority. That’s sufficient.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos. I have not forgotten to post MORE of my reverse timeline.

I have gone through about 300 pages of 700 pages of notes.

And I will have to post it (more or less), in reverse order.

Some of my history back-track MAY not be in perfect time sequence but it will be roughly there.

There is a LOT of info. and I hope you are gearing up for your DENIAL timeline too. That will be very interesting as I think it will be scant or you are going to have to use known heretics.

 

[BartholomewB]

Speaking as a CAFer who has only very occasionally posted a comment or two on the frequent threads addressing this issue, I would like point out that, as I see it, there are really two separate questions being asked, not just one. Sometimes it can be difficult to decide which of the two questions a poster is answering. For greater clarity, here are the two questions, as I see them:

1. For a hypothetical student of Sacred Scripture who is blessed with a sound knowledge of Second Temple Judaism and the history of Judea from earliest times at least up until the Bar Kokhba revolt, who is also fully familiar with the Early Church Fathers, and who, in addition, can read without difficulty anything written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, how many possible answers are there to the question of the actual, historical parentage of Simeon, Jude and the others named in the Gospels and Epistles as “the brethren of the Lord”?
2. Among all the possible answers to Question 1 above, which is the one that the Catholic Church decided to teach as its doctrine, and how did it arrive at this conclusion?

Both these questions are interesting, and both can be productive of fresh, important insights. But they are two separate questions, calling for two separate answers.