How many "brothers" did Jesus have?

[MartinJordan]

And just for the record, the view that Mary was not a virgin is not a modern idea. If you look at the early chruch writings, they were divided. Those who viewed Mary not a perpetual virgin: Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Proof please.

MJ

 

[Good_Fella]

I think the above 2 points could be addressed by this response: the above suggest that St. Luke and St. Matthew understood that their writings would not need to make “explicit distinctions” since they understood that a Church, and not their writings, would serve as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Jesus did not commission either of them to write anything. Rather, he commissioned a Church.

And that’s the explanation for why the inspired writers made no effort to make some point of doctrine “explicitly distinct.”

They understood that their writings would not be a complete compendium of the faith, but rather a channel of the Word of God to be guarded and interpreted by His Body, the Church.

 

[Good_Fella]

And just for the record, the view that Mary was not a virgin is not a modern idea. If you look at the early chruch writings, they were divided. Those who viewed Mary not a perpetual virgin: Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

*Concerning the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, from Book V.

"James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time…

“And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord’s uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.”
Hegesippus, Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church [170 A.D.]*

Hegesippus does not mean that James was a uterine or step brother of Jesus. He means James is the son of the other Mary mentioned in Scripture and Cleophas/Alphaeus. Cleophas was the brother (brother-in-law) of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son. The apostle Simeon succeeded his brother (James the Less) as Bishop of Jerusalem. As I mentioned above, James would have been called a son of Joseph just by being his nephew, if by that it were meant James (or Simeon) was a cousin of Jesus; since there was no word for cousin in Aramaic or Hebrew. There is nothing in the few remaining fragments in the Commentaries that even remotely indicate that Hegesippus denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. This work of his isn’t even a theological treatise which concerns Church doctrine. I’m afraid you may have proof-read into the historical text as you have into Scripture. It’s that expression “the Lord’s brother” that has sounded the alarm bell once again.

"…and those of them who proclaimed him as Emmanuel, born of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, declaring that the Word should become flesh and the Son of God the Son of Man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb, which regenerates man unto God, and which he himself made pure); and having become this which we also are."
St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, lV.33.15 [c.A.D.188]

Ireneaus appears to imply that he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Kindly show us where he at least implies that he denied this doctrine of the Church. If you’re thinking of the phrase “when yet a virgin” in parallel with Eve, I can respond to that like I have several times before at other Christian forums.

Helvidius thought he could appeal to the authority of Tertullian when he contended against the Church’s teaching of the PVM, which was ironic to say the least; since his opponent, Jerome, was a Church Father who never succumbed to heresy and died out of communion with the Church. Jerome could only reply that Tertullian was “not a man of the Church.”

There is absolutely no question as to what Basil believed.

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin."
St. Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 [ante 379 A.D.]

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord – three mysteries to be cried aloud – the which were wrought in the silence of God."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, 19:1 [c.110 A.D]

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle, understood Mary to be ever-virgin - as is implied in his letter. The bishop mentions three mysteries which were “hidden from the prince of this world”: Mary’s virginity (a state), the birth of her son, (an event), and the death of our Lord. He doesn’t speak of only two mysteries: the virgin birth and death of Jesus. So if Mary did have children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus, her virginity could no longer have been hidden from the devil. For Satan would have presumed that Jesus was the son of the carpenter like the Jews had. If Ignatius had meant the supernatural virginal conception of Jesus(an event) instead of Mary’s virginity (a state), he could have written ‘the conception of her offspring’ just as he had written “her childbearing” (two events). But rather he writes “the virginity of Mary” (the state of her chastity), probably having learned about Mary’s perpetual virginal state from the apostle John himself.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And just for the record, the view that Mary was not a virgin is not a modern idea. If you look at the early chruch writings, they were divided. Those who viewed Mary not a perpetual virgin: Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

You’re incorrect about Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
You are correct, however, that some fairly early on had questioned the PV of the Blessed Virgin. Most notably Helvidius.

While Helvidius’ works have not survived to this day, St. Jerome’s response, Against Helvidius, has.
He in no uncertain terms and in an admittedly derogatory manner tears this idea to shreds.

 

[Good_Fella]

Quite the contrary. He was very precise. Jesus was the first-born of Mary.
That is the technical term for it.
And they ALL knew that this did not imply that there need be a second-born.

Obviously, since they knew Jesus wasn’t the natural son of Joseph. As we know,the designation “firstborn” (bekhor) was used as a title to affirm Jesus’ status as principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family. Since Joseph was not his real father, the title may designate our Lord’s right to the throne of David and the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, granted by his heavenly Father, who swore an oath to David. As a descendant of David, Jesus would have been regarded as his son. Anyway, in Judaic tradition, a father is obligated to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir. The Father did this when the Holy Spirit inspired Zechariah to pronounce his canticle of praise: “He has raised up for us a mighty saviour born of the house of David,” and when God himself spoke from heaven at the time Jesus was baptized: “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Hence, the designation “firstborn” used by Luke could not possibly have suggested to the Christian community that Jesus was numerically the first son of Mary, since Mary did not beget Jesus by the seed of Joseph, but by the power of the Most High. And they knew by oral tradition that Jesus was her only child. What more precision would they need? The term firstborn means that what it is technically intended to mean, and it refers to both the father and the mother of the child.

He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
Luke 2, 49

 

[Good_Fella]

Quite the contrary. He was very precise. Jesus was the first-born of Mary.
That is the technical term for it.
And they ALL knew that this did not imply that there need be a second-born.

Obviously, since they knew Jesus wasn’t the natural son of Joseph. As we know,the designation “firstborn” (bekhor) was used as a title to affirm Jesus’ status as principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family. Since Joseph was not his real father, the title may designate our Lord’s right to the throne of David and the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, granted by his heavenly Father, who swore an oath to David. As a descendant of David, Jesus would have been regarded as his son. Anyway, in Judaic tradition, a father is obligated to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir. The Father did this when the Holy Spirit inspired Zechariah to pronounce his canticle of praise: “He has raised up for us a mighty saviour born of the house of David,” and when God himself spoke from heaven at the time Jesus was baptized: “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Hence, the designation “firstborn” used by Luke could not possibly have suggested to the Christian community that Jesus was numerically the first son of Mary, since Mary did not beget Jesus by the seed of Joseph, but by the power of the Most High. And they knew by oral tradition that Jesus was her only child. What more precision would they need? The term firstborn means that what it is technically intended to mean, and it refers to both the father and the mother of the child.

He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
Luke 2, 49

 

[drblank1]

Proof please.

MJ

**Hegesippus **refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.

**Irenaeus **refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

**Tertullian ** didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus’ brothers were “really” his brothers, his “blood-relationship” (Against Marcion, 4:19).

Also, Tertulian writes of Mary representing both monogamy and continence:
“…And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.” (On Monogamy, 8)

Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

I am not arguing if Mary was or was not a virgin. The point of my previous post was to refute the false assertion of “Mary NOT being a perpetual virgin” was a MODERN invention of the Protestant movement. And that was simply is NOT true!!!

 

[Nicea325]

**Hegesippus **refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.

**Irenaeus **refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

**Tertullian ** didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus’ brothers were “really” his brothers, his “blood-relationship” (Against Marcion, 4:19).

Also, Tertulian writes of Mary representing both monogamy and continence:
“…And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.” (On Monogamy, 8)

Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

I am not arguing if Mary was or was not a virgin. The point of my previous post was to refute the false assertion of “Mary NOT being a perpetual virgin” was a MODERN invention of the Protestant movement. And that was simply is NOT true!!!

Nice proof-texting! The same is done by non-Catholics to prove men like above believed and supported Protestants beliefs. Read their material in its entirety and their message is not what you are trying to convey!

IT IS TRUE your tactics are MODERN!

 

[Erich]

And that was simply is NOT true!!!

The folks you quote were all a lot closer to the events (and to the writing about the events) than we are. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “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?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[drblank1]

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

But remember how Jesus reproofed her? “Woman, what am I to do with thee?” She did err.

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

I can see the thought and effort in your post and you should be commended, but unfortunately, you argue a point I was not making. I neither admit nor deny the possibility Mary being a virgin her whole life. My point was to refute the idea that the acceptance of the idea was not unanimous in the early church. It became more widely accepted after the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[drblank1]

Nice proof-texting! The same is done by non-Catholics to prove men like above believed and supported Protestants beliefs. Read their material in its entirety and their message is not what you are trying to convey!

IT IS TRUE your tactics are MODERN!

You suggest guile, which coming from a fellow Christian, is very disappointing.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But remember how Jesus reproofed her? “Woman, what am I to do with thee?” She did err.

That was no reproof. Christ didn’t violate the commandment to honor your father and your mother.

Study the wording again. Your interpretations are off.

I can see the thought and effort in your post and you should be commended, but unfortunately, you argue a point I was not making. I neither admit nor deny the possibility Mary being a virgin her whole life. My point was to refute the idea that the acceptance of the idea was not unanimous in the early church.

I admitted that Helvidius didn’t accept the idea, but you must remember that he wasn’t considered part of the Church.

I looked at most of your referenced quotes, and found that they don’t say anything like what you think they say. Your examples above have to be interpreted with an agenda in order to force them to say what you imply. I don’t have time to answer them all, but if you want to discuss a couple of them, pick out your top 2 or 3.

And you use the word “implication” quite often throughout your explaination…

It became more widely accepted after the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.

After 30-33AD??

 

[pablope]

But remember how Jesus reproofed her? “Woman, what am I to do with thee?” She did err.

I can see the thought and effort in your post and you should be commended, but unfortunately, you argue a point I was not making. I neither admit nor deny the possibility Mary being a virgin her whole life. My point was to refute the idea that the acceptance of the idea was not unanimous in the early church. It became more widely accepted after the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.

When do you do think the RCC was founded?

I neither admit nor deny the possibility Mary being a virgin her whole life. My point was to refute the idea that the acceptance of the idea was not unanimous in the early church

A Church council, using the authority of the Church, not the Scriptures, defined this belief in the PV, so as with the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, among others, in those councils of the Church.

So you know better than the council that defined the Perpertual Divinity as a Church teaching? Do you mean to say you are guided by the HS in your understanding of Scriptures today, and the council was not guided by the HS when those bishops sat in council and decided and declared it as a Church doctrine?

 

[Nicea325]

You suggest guile, which coming from a fellow Christian, is very disappointing.

Meanwhile I read and acknowledge a fellow Christian being disingenious with ancient sources, which is much more disappointing. You cannot re-write history simply because you disagree.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

**Hegesippus **refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.

This is an implication on your part. Jude (who was not a son of the Blessed Virgin Mary) was KNOWN AS “the Lord’s brother” as opposed to Symeon. “According to the flesh” doesn’t prove anything about a uterine brotherhood.

**Irenaeus **refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin.

Nope. That’s YOUR “implication.”

Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

Again, that’s YOUR “implication.” It’s not what Irenaeus said.

**Tertullian ** didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus’ brothers were “really” his brothers, his “blood-relationship” (Against Marcion, 4:19).

In context, Tertullian is arguing that Jesus had an actual family. Families can be immediate or extended, and sometimes, especially in ancient Semitic cultures, the lines can be blurred. Cousins and nephews can be raised by other than their natural parents; a widow and her family can be subsumed into another family member’s household, etc.

Also, Tertulian writes of Mary representing both monogamy and continence:
“…And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.” (On Monogamy, 8)

Okaaayyy … but this still doesn’t say anything like you’re claiming.

Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Cute. Not quite what Kelly wrote, although close.
"The title ‘ever-Virgin’ (…) was also coming into vogue; but we should note that, while Cyril of Jerusalem was silent on the point, not only the Antidicomarionites attacked by Epiphanius and the Arian Eunomius openly taught that the ‘bretheren of the Lord’ were Mary’s sons by Joseph, but Basil of Caesarea, when criticizing the later, implied that such a view was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy. Athanasius, however, stoutly defended Mary’s virginity post partum, and in addition held her up as the ideal pattern for Christian virgins. "

You make it seem like Basil said this in no uncertain terms, whilst Kelly says that he implied this.

I am not arguing if Mary was or was not a virgin. The point of my previous post was to refute the false assertion of “Mary NOT being a perpetual virgin” was a MODERN invention of the Protestant movement. And that was simply is NOT true!!!

Of course there were those OUTSIDE of Christianity that might have held this. Heck, there are those today that, like Dan Brown, maintain that Jesus was not a virgin. So what?

 

[Nicea325]

This is an implication on your part. Jude (who was not a son of the Blessed Virgin Mary) was KNOWN AS “the Lord’s brother” as opposed to Symeon. “According to the flesh” doesn’t prove anything about a uterine brotherhood.

Nope. That’s YOUR “implication.”

Again, that’s YOUR “implication.” It’s not what Irenaeus said.

In context, Tertullian is arguing that Jesus had an actual family. Families can be immediate or extended, and sometimes, especially in ancient Semitic cultures, the lines can be blurred. Cousins and nephews can be raised by other than their natural parents; a widow and her family can be subsumed into another family member’s household, etc.

Okaaayyy … but this still doesn’t say anything like you’re claiming.

Cute. Not quite what Kelly wrote, although close.
"The title ‘ever-Virgin’ (…) was also coming into vogue; but we should note that, while Cyril of Jerusalem was silent on the point, not only the Antidicomarionites attacked by Epiphanius and the Arian Eunomius openly taught that the ‘bretheren of the Lord’ were Mary’s sons by Joseph, but Basil of Caesarea, when criticizing the later, implied that such a view was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy. Athanasius, however, stoutly defended Mary’s virginity post partum, and in addition held her up as the ideal pattern for Christian virgins. "

You make it seem like Basil said this in no uncertain terms, whilst Kelly says that he implied this.

Of course there were those OUTSIDE of Christianity that might have held this. Heck, there are those today that, like Dan Brown, maintain that Jesus was not a virgin. So what?

This argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity has been rebuked and debunked a million times over. What I find so amazing is how opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity assume as though the early church had it all wrong until the Reformation? Christ did not Incarnate in the 16th century.

 

[wmscott]

This argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity has been rebuked and debunked a million times over. What I find so amazing is how opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity assume as though the early church had it all wrong until the Reformation? Christ did not Incarnate in the 16th century.

It is like if you keep telling the lie long enough and loud enough then they hope folks will begin to believe it. What gets me is that these folks always think with flawed human intellect and place it above Gods perfect wisdom. How many women even in this day and age live out their lives as virgins? Where is the incredulous stance regarding that? it all boils down to “It cant be true because the Catholic church believes in it, so it is most assuredly wrong”. Then you get “classical_hero” maliciously making offensive and down right FALSE assertions regarding the Blessed Mother and not even having the integrity to defend his assertion. Just another case of someone applying their own personal flawed interpretation to scripture. it was not about trying to debate, it was a drive by to try and incite. a bit cowardly to me.

 

[drblank1]

This argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity has been rebuked and debunked a million times over. What I find so amazing is how opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity assume as though the early church had it all wrong until the Reformation? Christ did not Incarnate in the 16th century.

Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

I keep reading over and over again that “first-born” can also mean “only-born” and “bothers and sisters” can mean “cousins”. But what you fail to consider is that they could also mean “first-born” as in the first of others and actual “brothers and sisters”.

I believe the intent of the Non-Catholic Forum was to express and share ideas of our different faiths in a meaningful manner. But I have found this forum is a place for certain individuals to troll and pounce on anyone who would express any ideas contrary to that of the Catholic faith. Throwing insults, accusations, and trying to demean the faith of other is not what Christ taught those of us who follow him. Too bad!!!

 

[ericc]

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

None of the Reformer Fathers believe in a non-virgin Mary. So they didn’t follow the apostle’s directions? How did they test the teachings against scripture? Then only those post Reformer Fathers would be true Protestants according to your line of reasoning because Reformer Fathers did not follow apostles directions and test the teachings against scripture. If the Reformer Fathers did follow apostles directions and test the teachings against scripture, then later Protestants could not be true Protestants then. You can not have both Protestant camps correct.

Actually, I have been trying to nail this down on who were the first Protestants to re-introduce the idea that Mary was non-EV but so far I have gotten nothing. If not the person(s) at least the century/decade? Do you have Protestant sources available to zero this down?

 

[JonNC]

=drblank1;11706461]Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

The thing is it isn’t Roman Catholic koolaid. The EO confesses the PV, and so did not only the Lutheran reformers but also the leaders of other reform movements, such as Zwingli and Calvin. It is obvious that these varying traditions all approve the PV, or at least did at one time.

I keep reading over and over again that “first-born” can also mean “only-born” and “bothers and sisters” can mean “cousins”. But what you fail to consider is that they could also mean “first-born” as in the first of others and actual “brothers and sisters”.

Except that historically, in these varying traditions, the former is by far the consensus.

I believe the intent of the Non-Catholic Forum was to express and share ideas of our different faiths in a meaningful manner. But I have found this forum is a place for certain individuals to troll and pounce on anyone who would express any ideas contrary to that of the Catholic faith. Throwing insults, accusations, and trying to demean the faith of other is not what Christ taught those of us who follow him. Too bad!!!

I have experienced this on rare occasion also. This is, after all, an anonomous Internet forum. My experience is also that, by far, CAF is more welcoming than most others. Most of the veteran posters at CAF, Catholic and otherwise, post in a remarkably controlled and respectful way.

Jon