"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[Radical]

What do you think of Adam Clark’s opinion that James, Jude, and Simon (all named among the Apostles) are the sons of Alphaeus?

I haven’t read any of Clark’s stuff, but given the evidence, his opinion could only be based on speculation.

Do you and Rightly honestly believe that younger siblings would presume to “take charge” of the firstborn son, who was a respected Rabbi?

why not? Please keep in mind that (according to scripture), Jesus wasn’t all that respected in his home town. Second, it was not one or two younger siblings travelling to take charge of Jesus…it was the family: mother, brothers and sisters. Third, he was thought to be out of his mind…do you think that the eldest son perogative would even trump insanity? I don’t.

No, He does not. He tells His disciples that those who obey Him can be raised to the same level of kinship with him enjoyed by his near earthly kin.

I think you need to re-examine the three passages…Mark, in particular, where the presentation of Christ’s family is given in the worst light. The exchange is:

a) “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
b) “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Jesus asked.
c) Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

(b) and (c) do not amount to an inclusion of his disciples, but consitute a denial of his family. It is: You say that my mothers and brothers are outside. Well, who are really my mother and my brothers? They are the disciples inside with me and not the family members outside (who have come to take charge of me)…that is the flavor of what is found in Mark 3.

If Adam Clark is right about the identity of the disciples, I have to wonder then, who are these that DON"T believe?

well, if Clark did any sort of job on the matter, he should have answered that question…so what did Clark say?

So, if another theologian writes that she was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, does that one “rule out” Tertullian?

No…Tertullian’s work indicates what he (and likely most Christians at Carthage) believed in 200 AD+/-…Origen’s works (for example) indicate what the Alexandrian school taught in Origen’s day. What we must account for is the variation that is observed WRT this issue. Options wrt the perpetual virginity of Mary (PVM) include:

a) it was a continuous teaching from the time of Mary on;
b) it was something derived from scripture or subsequent revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and
c) it was the uninspired product of pious imagination which gradually won acceptance.

The observed variation can be accounted for in all three: a) heresies crept in; b) it took time to gain acceptance and some (wrongly) opposed it; and c) it took time to gain acceptance and some (rightly) opposed it.

Trying to form a doctrine using these stray statements of the Fathers is problematic, as you can see.

agreed, they were not an infallible lot …and so one shouldn’t base mandatory doctrine on their ruminations.

Besides, as in all writings “plain meaning” differes depending upon the perception of the reader. When I read “does a mother live on conemporaneously with her sons in every case”, to me it is a reference that her son died an untimely early death, and she survived beyond her offspring, which is not usual.

Egad! you need to read that again, you are not even close.

Whe I read “have all sons brother born for them”, I understand it to mean that he had no siblings born of His mother.

nope…Tertullian is using that question to verify that Christ was indeed born (in the flesh). That Christ had brothers (and a mother) standing outside is evidence that Jesus too, was born.

And you have yet to respond to the discrepancy in scripture about the names of those called “brethren” and “sisters” having come from a different set of parents than Jesus.

I see no need to respond…that different parents gave their kids the same name was common.

Yes, both Tertullian and Helvidius embraced heresies.

that assertion aligns with explanation (a) above…I prefer (c) which has them resisting the bad innovation.

The other Fathers are clear on this point.

none of the earliest ones are…and that is the problem with option (a) above…the gap of silence

So, you are reaching into the Fathers, finding those who were considered heretics by the early church, and using their writings to support your own view.

I am accounting for the variation and the silence/gap that is displayed in the historical record…IMHO you have no sound explanation for the gap…“they didn’t mention it b/c they didn’t have to” doesn’t amount to an explanation…it is but a poor excuse.

I dont’ think they were “doubts” at all - she had complete trust in God. That is why she was not made mute as Zechariah was.

we see John the baptist make declarations as to the identity of Christ and then wonder about the identity of Jesus later…and he was the greatest of those born of a woman

It just did not make sense to her because she had taken a vow of virginity.

pure speculation…

 

[Radical]

This is rather disingenous of you, Radical. You seem to be grasping at Fathers to support your view that Mary did not remain a virgin, but you don’t do the same with regard to all the other beliefs of the Church at the time. I suspect it is because those beliefs are just “too Catholic”.

so give me a concrete example of where I have approached the evidence differently

This is also a serious case of denial. Almost any ECF is more reputable than Tertullian, since he was cast about by waves with regard to doctrinal issues.

Here is what Jerome had to say about Tertullian (In On Illustrious Men):
Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.
if you think “Almost any ECF is more reputable than Tertullian”, then it seems that you are at odds with the likes of Jerome and Cyprian

And the only reason Helvidius’ view was preserved is because Jerome was writing against him.

and so your point is that those in power destroyed the works of those with whom they disgreed? But since you have mentioned Jerome, let’s take some time to look at how Jerome argued for the PVM. In attacking how Helvidius used the scriptures Jerome took pains to be extremely thorough, however, when it comes to attacking how Helvidius utilized tradition Jerome’s thoroughness evaporates. Instead of dealing with the tradition in detail, Jerome resorts to a sweeping statement and a misrepresentation. Here is all that he had to say:
Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.

Notice how this dismissal of Tertullian contrasts with the assessment of Tertullian found in Jerome’s On Illustrious Men…seems a touch hypocritical

Further, in On Illustrious Men Jerome described the works of Ignatius:
he wrote one epistle To the Ephesians, another To the Magnesians, a third To the Trallians, a fourth To the Romans, and going thence, he wrote To the Philadelphians and To the Smyrneans and especially To Polycarp, commending to him the church at Antioch.
WRT the works of Polycarp, Jerome only mentions one:
He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.

so…it would seem that Jerome had access to the very same works from Ignatius and from Polycarp that we still possess…and yet Jerome wants to array Ignatius and Polycarp et al against Helvidius? Quite likely we can attribute Jerome’s failure to produce good tradition in support of the PVM and his misrepresentation concerning the support of Ignatius and Polycarp (for his position) to the terrible/absolute lack of long-standing tradition (ie 1st and 2nd century stuff) for the PVM

 

[Tomb54]

No, I said Tertullian was more reputable than the Protoevangelium and that he was earlier than the later ECFs. BTW what about Montanism would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity (PVM) if it was an established teaching ?

There is plenty of need to write about the PVM with regard to opposing Gnosticism…the ECF should have asserted that Mary’s womb was kept pure b/c it housed Jesus (in the flesh) for about 9 mos. and as such stands as proof that Christ did indeed come in the flesh (if the PVM was in fact a church teaching at that time)…but we have silence instead.

Well you have a few quotes above from ECF more reputable than Tertullian since they did not later become heretics and some in the same time period so I guess you most give up on the silence of the ECFs. I found the Origen one but Guanophore has that one and many more. As I said before the NT was also in flux at this time so I would not say it was too late for this, the Trinity, and the Bible to pop up at this time. Jesus told His church that the Holy Spirit will lead it in all truth and did not give a time period for this to happen. As most know the church only defended things as they needed defending as the HS has guided it to ALL TRUTHS. Some people just want to have their truth over the truth of the HS and what He guides the church in. Do you want to refute that the earliest Church Fathers called their Church the Catholic Church?

 

[Radical]

"guanophore:

Why would Ambrose be holding up Mary as an example of chastity if she was not in a state of virginity?

b/c he had bought into the innovation? quite possible at his later date.

He wrote around the same time the NT canon was closed. If that is “late”, then I guess you can’t trust the NT either?

your “then” doesn’t seem to follow from the “if”…maybe you could present it as a simple point-form proof. I’ll eagerly await your effort as it might change my whole outlook…for example, Sir I Newton came up with Calculus and a fine equation for gravity. At the same time he proposed that with the right formula he could change other metals into gold. I thought that I could validly accept and trust his Calculus and reject his alchemy (even though they come from the same time period)…but I guess you will prove that I must either accept both or reject both.

As with a number of Tertullians writings, it is not consistent with the faith of the Church. One does not learn the faith of the Church by looking at those who depart from it. Well, maybe you do, but Catholics dont.

and one does not produce an accurate picture of the doctrine of the earliest Church by claiming that everything was there from the start, notwithstanding what the historical record actually shows.

No more of a “gap” than the councils that defined the hypostatic union and the Trinity.

well let’s examine this claim…or at least the part wrt the Trinity. Tertullian, that fellow that you would like to dismiss as a heretic seems to have coined the term “Trinity”…so it isn’t that we have to wait until 325 to find a argument for the Trinity. Further, Tertullian based his concept on the Trinity from scripture where it is clearly stated: 1) that there is one God, 2) that the Father is God; 3) that the Son is God…as such, the doctrine of the Trinity is an effort to reconcile those apparently conflicting, clear statements. Now if Tertullian’s effort of reconciliation wasn’t sound, then it should be rejected (notwithstanding that the “Trinity” was endorsed by the Council of Nicaea). Contrast that with the PVM…it is opposed by Tertullian and supported by the Protoevangelium (a work lacking credibility) . Instead of clear statements from scripture, the PVM is derived from inferences drawn from Scripture (only) by those devoted to Mary. The PVM is not the product of man’s reasoning (trying to reconcile scripture), it is (IMO) the product of man’s pious imagination adding to scripture…not the same gap or the same history at all.

“…Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…”

ORIGEN, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 6 [A.D. 185-253]

What is it about comments like this that give you the impression they do not represent the faith of the Church?

First I note you have dodged my question. To answer yours, look at what Origen actually said. He said: “…Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…” Note that he didn’t say: "…Mary, as all declare " and he didn’t say “…Mary, as all Christians declare…” and he didn’t say “…Mary, as all the apostles declared” …Given Origen’s choice of wording it would seem that some around Alexandria (at the time of Origen) did not accept the PVM and that Origen dismissed them as not thinking correctly about Mary. Tertullian definitely denied the PVM and so it would seem more likely that Origen, instead of reflecting an established position of the Church, was advocating a position that was derived from the practice of reading ever more into the gaps between the lines of scripture and a position which was well on its way to gaining acceptance around the empire.

Actually, there is not reason to focus on her perpetual virginity in those cases. The Fathers emphasized that He took His earthly flesh from her flesh, and there is plenty written about that. This was the main thrust of the apologies to the Gnostics and Arians.

the main thrust was to prove that Christ came in the flesh…and that he wasn’t a mere phantom. The is no need for an immaculately conceived mother for a mere phantom…there is no need for a phantom’s mother to remain an ever-virgin…so if those two doctrines were established and known to be from the apostolic era you can bet the farm on the fact that the ECFs would have taken those two clubs and mercilessly beat the Gnostics over theie heads with them…but, we get silence.

As to the “silence”, there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear…

nicely done…dismiss the gap, but fail absolutely to provide anything that bridges the gap and then suggest that I am deaf b/c I don’t wish to hear what doesn’t exist…it is an obvious and simple fact that a gap exists…perhaps it is that there are none so blind as those who will not see (the gap).

 

[Tomb54]

so give me a concrete example of where I have approached the evidence differently
Here is what Jerome had to say about Tertullian (In On Illustrious Men):
Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.
if you think “Almost any ECF is more reputable than Tertullian”, then it seems that you are at odds with the likes of Jerome and Cyprian
.[/indent]

I would say the highlighted part this truly states that Tertullian was good for awhile and like many in high places let his pride get to him and started teaching against the church those other ECFs loved and defended. Jerome also wrote that Jesus had no other brothers so if you like what he says about Tertullian then you should also agree with what he says about Jesus not having any other brothers.

 

[Radical]

Why would he bother to attack the teaching unless it was established teaching?

he doesn’t attack it…you need to read the works (instead of jumping to conclusions) In one instance he is attacking Marcionism (close to Gnosticism)

There are connection as some have stated with the Ark of the covenant but I doubt you would interpret the bible that way,

you are right…I am familiar with the argument and find it extremely over-reaching and unbelievable.

…since most Protestant do not look at the unity of the bible but only take it in parts so I will not go that route.

nice insult of most Protestants

 

[Radical]

Well you have a few quotes above from ECF more reputable than Tertullian since they did not later become heretics…

you view them as more reputable only b/c they align more with your beliefs…your beliefs are not what I use to measure reputation or determine a heresy…but then again …you could simply answer my question which was: what about Montanism would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity (PVM) if it was an established teaching ?

…and some in the same time period so I guess you most give up on the silence of the ECFs. I found the Origen one but Guanophore has that one and many more.

same time period? Maybe I missed something, but isn’t Origen the only one close in time…and isn’t he a heretic too by your standards?

As I said before the NT was also in flux at this time so I would not say it was too late for this, the Trinity, and the Bible to pop up at this time.

the bible didn’t just “pop up”…it wasn’t as if the books were unmentioned and then all of a sudden, 250 years later people start suggesting that there are some gospels and that Paul may have penned a letter or two.

As most know the church only defended things as they needed defending…

and how do you know this?..but we are not just talking about defending the PVM, are we? Instead, we are talking about no one of any repute even mentioning it for what, about 250 years?

Some people just want to have their truth over the truth of the HS and what He guides the church in.

well, you may just be describing yourself

Do you want to refute that the earliest Church Fathers called their Church the Catholic Church?

I’ll argue that the Catholic Church of today doesn’t possess the same deposit of faith as the Catholic Church named by Ignatius…the PVM is just the tip of an ice berg…but that’s been done on another thread

 

[Radical]

I would say the highlighted part this truly states that Tertullian was good for awhile and like many in high places let his pride get to him and started teaching against the church those other ECFs loved and defended.

so his pride led him into Montanism?..now, what again was it about Montanism that would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity if it was an established teaching? Jerome thought Joseph was also a virgin…but that one didn’t catch on…the church didn’t need a uber-pure father figure, it already had one,…I see you embracing Origen even though he had some bizarre ideas and I see you embracing Jerome even though he was prideful…but you simply dismiss Tertullian without explaining how his so-called heretical view would have caused him to deny the PVM.

Jerome also wrote that Jesus had no other brothers so if you like what he says about Tertullian then you should also agree with what he says about Jesus not having any other brothers.

here is that “if you like one thing, then you must like all things” bit again…why would you think that way?..it gets wearisome.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

here is that “if you like one thing, then you must like all things” bit again…why would you think that way?..it gets wearisome.

It seems what you’re saying here is, pick and choose what you like, or what fits your theology, and drop the rest. How do you know what parts to ‘like’ and which parts to reject?

 

[Tomb54]

so his pride led him into Montanism?..now, what again was it about Montanism that would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity if it was an established teaching? Jerome thought Joseph was also a virgin…but that one didn’t catch on…the church didn’t need a uber-pure father figure, it already had one,…I see you embracing Origen even though he had some bizarre ideas and I see you embracing Jerome even though he was prideful…but you simply dismiss Tertullian without explaining how his so-called heretical view would have caused him to deny the PVM.

Actually if you read my post I did not say there was anything in Montanism that would lead him to reject PVM unless you take the route that Montanism thought they could teach another gospel. In otherwards they could say whatever they wanted because they got new revelations from God Himself and they did not need to follow the Christ the Christ started.
I reject his ideas on the PVM because it does not agree with the other ECFs as this was usually used to decide what teachings the whole church taught and believed throughout time.

here is that “if you like one thing, then you must like all things” bit again…why would you think that way?..it gets wearisome.

You also have to hold to one man out of all the other church father that rejected the PVM. While he might be the first to state it if it was true then his belief would have lasted but it did not. I will say he was good at the start and he even admitted the CC was the true church. Kind of make you wonder why it was the church Christ started and then he attacked it later. Did it change in his short life time or did he change?

You made the statement that the catholic church today is not the catholic church of ignatious but I will say while you are right neither is a musterd seed the same after it sprouts and grows. You would have to prove the church ignatious was proclaiming died away at a certain time and a new one started which you can’t do or you have to say Jesus was not telling the truth when He said the HS would lead them to all truth and the He would be with His church always.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore, I have been following this thread for some time now and I want to compliment you on continually addressing the errors that some here want to stubbornly stick to unto the bitter end. It has been thoroughly informative, factual, and in context. I have learned from the dialog by verifying the facts myself and I am sure that there have been many watching this dialog that have learned a thing or two also. It is just amazing how some folks will stick to the anti-Catholic playbook no matter how much the truth is presented to them over and over again. I guess this is something that is buried too deep into their beliefs. It is always the same top three 1. The Blessed Mother, 2. The Pope, and 3. The Most Holy Eucharist that is at the top of the anti-Catholic playbook. We can only pray for these unfortunate souls that someday they come to see the truth of it all.

Keep up the good work, it is appreciated very much. Peace.

Thank you for the encouragement, wmscott. This thread has been particularly challenging for me, and I have had to reorganize my personal collections of material chronologically, so it has been a good exercise in research for me also. When having dialogue with the recalcitrant, I do post primarily for the benefit of persons like yourself, who are more likely to be reached by the Truth. I will join you in prayer for all of those who have not come to yet know and embrace the One Church founded by Christ.

 

[Tomb54]

Thank you for the encouragement, wmscott. This thread has been particularly challenging for me, and I have had to reorganize my personal collections of material chronologically, so it has been a good exercise in research for me also. When having dialogue with the recalcitrant, I do post primarily for the benefit of persons like yourself, who are more likely to be reached by the Truth. I will join you in prayer for all of those who have not come to yet know and embrace the One Church founded by Christ.

Yes you do a better job at this than I do but as I learn hopefully I will be able to support the truth better.

 

[timorista]

Matt 27:55-56

Jerome writes:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

I agree with Jerome that reading the Fathers makes one wise.

Amazing that John Calvin agreed with Jerome:

John Calvin:

“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly is this! For the Gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had
sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…. And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the Gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the firstborn whether or not there was any question of the second” (John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562).

 

[guanophore]

Why would he bother to attack the teaching unless it was established teaching?

This is really the most salient question.

We run into this same thing with regard to the baptism of infants. The arguements were not about whether they should be baptized, but if they should wait till the 8th day since it replaced circumcision.

 

[guanophore]

Amazing that John Calvin agreed with Jerome:

John Calvin:

“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly is this! For the Gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had
sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…. And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the Gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the firstborn whether or not there was any question of the second” (John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562).

Modern Evangelicals just say that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were just suffering from too much contamination by Catholicism at the point they wrote things like this.

 

[Tomb54]

Actually if you read my post I did not say there was anything in Montanism that would lead him to reject PVM unless you take the route that Montanism thought they could teach another gospel. In otherwards they could say whatever they wanted because they got new revelations from God Himself and they did not need to follow the Christ the Christ started.
I reject his ideas on the PVM because it does not agree with the other ECFs as this was usually used to decide what teachings the whole church taught and believed throughout time.

OOPs the Church Christ started.
Which by the way was very similar to the Church Ignatious, Clement and Irenaeus knew and defended. I say similer because even in that short time the church had changed because as a mustard seed it was already growing and they believed in God’s promise in leading His church to all truths and being with them until the end of time.

 

[Tomb54]

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands
Fragments of Papias

Papias was around the time of Polycarp if I remember right. Wonder why while mentioning all these Mary’s and their children he says Mary the mother of Jesus and again as in the bible no others are mentioned as being her children directly? Little more support that it was established teaching that Mary had no other children because this writing would have been ideal for it to pop up if in fact Mary had other children (true brother and sisters of Jesus).

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Amazing that John Calvin agreed with Jerome:
…
(John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562).

Timorista, thanks for the quote! I shall gladly pull this quote out for when talking to some calvinists that I know.

And guan, how do evangelicals listen to most of what the reformers said, but not on Mary? Doesn’t that come off as hypocritical?

 

[Radical]

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands
Fragments of Papias

Papias was around the time of Polycarp if I remember right. Wonder why while mentioning all these Mary’s and their children he says Mary the mother of Jesus and again as in the bible no others are mentioned as being her children directly? Little more support that it was established teaching that Mary had no other children because this writing would have been ideal for it to pop up if in fact Mary had other children (true brother and sisters of Jesus).

I believe that what you have quoted here is not recognized as a legitimate passage from Papias…it may be from Papias of Lombardy (century XI), You may be better served by looking at the fragments from Hippolytus…I think there is one that calls Mary ever-virgin (though I have never checked into its legitimacy)

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
And still, no scriptures refers to any of them as ‘child of Mary’.

You are correct…but then scriptures tend to focus on the more important matter of Christ and how one related to him.

Then why the consist belief by so many “late” Protestants and mean late because the early reformers believed in her perpetual virginity. The terms “brothers” and “until” have been debunked a million times over and yet still Protestants say she had more children? I call it denial and pride.

While we are noting what scriptures do and don’t mention, it might be worthwhile to note these things:

a) perpetual virginity (as defined by the CC) involves:

i) virginity before the birth (the scriptures and the earliest church fathers are clear on this)

Indeed.

ii) virginity during the birth process (scripture mentions quite a bit about the events on the night of the birth, but the scriptures and the earliest church fathers fail to mention this miracle)

And the failure to mention the miracle disproves Mary’s perpetual virginity? Why would the ECF’s and early chuch need to EXPLICITLY explain or defend Mary’s virginity? Why were doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation defined and ratified centuries later? Does it make them an “invention” or what? Because they were being challenged and yet the early church already taught it and believed it without having to define it and ratify it 300+ years later. Here is where Protestants bogus argument “Traditions” are false, fails miserably.

iii) virginity for the rest of Mary’s life, after the night of Christ’s birth (the scriptures and the earliest church fathers fail to mention this)

The other bogus argument and position from many Proetstants. Explicitness. Show me where scripture teaches explicity? Show me where scripture explicitly defines the three distinct persons of the Trinity?

b) other children from Mary eliminate her alleged perpetual virginity (I don’t think anyone is prepared to claim multiple virgin births), whereas the absence of other children from Mary doesn’t establish (but is consistent with) her alleged perpetual virginity.

Again,where does scripture refer or state she conceived other children? NO WHERE! Forget the “brother” and “until” argument,it has been proven wrong over and over. Absence? No! Non-existent! The whole belief of Mary having other children arised out of pure anti-Catholicism,plain and simple. No different than purgatory and praying for the dead. So many Protestants will go to great extremes to fabricate or impose bogus positions in order to present the early church and fathers as being “Protestant” which is plainly disingenious and absurd!