Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

[Chris_LaRock]

The reason Protestants don’t think Mary remained a virgin her whole life is because the scriptures never say so. In fact, Matthew 1:25 reads, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” To Protestants, this verse implies that Mary was only kept a virgin long enough to give birth to the Lord. To a Protestant, Mary had no reason to remain a virgin once Jesus was born.

Much of the Catholic teachings concerning Mary cannot actually be found in the New Testament, and therefore Protestants reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, writing them off as being the product of Catholic tradition.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Chris LaRock:

Much of the Catholic teachings concerning Mary cannot actually be found in the New Testament, and therefore Protestants reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, writing them off as being the product of Catholic tradition.

Their loss, after all St. Paul says to “hold fast to the traditions…”

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Didn’t the Lord once ask the religious leaders, “Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matthew 15:3

I understan the importance of tradition. However, they must be biblical. We don’t want to start replacing biblical worship with our man made traditions. That’s the mistake the Jewish authorities made in the New Testament.

 

[mercygate]

Warrior4Truth:

Does it not say in the bible that Jesus had brothers?

Scripture uses the word “brother” – as in calling Lot Abraham’s brother, although he was really Abraham’s nephew. However, nowhere does it say that anybody other than Jesus is Mary’s Son.

Try this: catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[mercygate]

Chris LaRock:

Didn’t the Lord once ask the religious leaders, “Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matthew 15:3

I understan the importance of tradition. However, they must be biblical. We don’t want to start replacing biblical worship with our man made traditions. That’s the mistake the Jewish authorities made in the New Testament.

Chris, Darlin’ all of your questions are well covered in tracts on the home page of Catholic Answers. Have a look. You may not be convinced by any of this but you will at least see that Catholics don’t just make this stuff up!

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I never meant to imply Catholics are making things up. I just don’t see how traditions can be held up to the same level as actual biblically oriented worship. Traditions are important, but must never be seen as equal to scripture.

 

[mercygate]

Chris LaRock:

I never meant to imply Catholics are making things up. I just don’t see how traditions can be held up to the same level as actual biblically oriented worship. Traditions are important, but must never be seen as equal to scripture.

You make a pretty strong statement here. This belongs on another thread, but since the Bible as we know it was not officially codified until late in the 4th Century, how did the Church get on before that? By her traditions – one of which is the table of contents of the Bible. A Protestant might say: I belong to a church based on the Bible! But a Catholic can honestly (and not nastily!) answer: “Good for you! I’m a Catholic and I belong to the Church that wrote that Bible.”

More stuff for ya to check out – just to demonstrate where we’re comin’ from on this side of the Tiber: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

 

[Chris_LaRock]

mercygate:

You make a pretty strong statement here. This belongs on another thread, but since the Bible as we know it was not officially codified until late in the 4th Century, how did the Church get on before that? By her traditions – one of which is the table of contents of the Bible. A Protestant might say: I belong to a church based on the Bible! But a Catholic can honestly (and not nastily!) answer: “Good for you! I’m a Catholic and I belong to the Church that wrote that Bible.”

More stuff for ya to check out – just to demonstrate where we’re comin’ from on this side of the Tiber: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

We do have the bible today. The problem with traditions is that it’s man’s way of establishing a relationship with God - but on his own terms.

The reason why I bring up tradition is because it’s the only source that teaches that Mary remained a virgin for life. No New Testament scripture states this. Only the traditions of man. As much as I love and admire my Catholic brethren, I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church that are not supported by the bible. This is faith in the word of men, rather than faith in the word of God.

I hope I’m not offending anyone on this site, but I feel traditions can be misleading when used improperly.

 

[LittleDeb]

Chris LaRock:

The reason why I bring up tradition is because it’s the only source that teaches that Mary remained a virgin for life. No New Testament scripture states this. Only the traditions of man. As much as I love and admire my Catholic brethren, I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church that are not supported by the bible. This is faith in the word of men, rather than faith in the word of God.

I hope I’m not offending anyone on this site, but I feel traditions can be misleading when used improperly.

No offense taken but I hesitate to remind you that if you are not Catholic you are reading a shortened Bible.

The Catholic Bible I read has a very definitive statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is in the gospel of John. “Behold your mother, Woman behold your son.” Oh and I know someone is going to make me go look that up for its chapter and verse. I probably should but it is late. Someone with scripture at hand please help me.

Anyway, that was the phrase that helped a friend of mine struggling during RCIA come all the way home. She realized that there would have been no need to give Mary to John if she had other children. After realizing this one simple truth she studied the ECF in depth and learned about the Jewish laws of the time period and why Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Every Tradition a Catholic practices is in full union with Scripture. I guess it just depends on who is interpreting said Scripture.

 

[puzzleannie]

Catilieth:

The Protestant belief that Joseph did not not honor Mary’s perpetual viginity has always bothered me. If.

this is not a universal Protestant belief. Many mainstream Protestant denominations still affirm all the elements of the Apostles Creed including Mary’s perpetual virginity. The challenge to this doctrine was not part of the Reformation but arose later in various times and places, within sects that were in dissent not necessarily against the Catholic Church, but against the Protestant denomination most influential in their country. I.e. non-conformists, Baptists and others in England who separated from the established Anglican religion. It gained influence in this country only within the last 100 years or so with the rise of fundamentalist and some evangelical sects.

 

[mercygate]

Chris LaRock:

We do have the bible today. The problem with traditions is that it’s man’s way of establishing a relationship with God - but on his own terms.

The reason why I bring up tradition is because it’s the only source that teaches that Mary remained a virgin for life. No New Testament scripture states this. Only the traditions of man. As much as I love and admire my Catholic brethren, I cannot reconcile the teachings of the Church that are not supported by the bible. This is faith in the word of men, rather than faith in the word of God.

I hope I’m not offending anyone on this site, but I feel traditions can be misleading when used improperly.

Ah, Chris, B’loved. This is the basic post-age-of-enlightenment view of the matter based on . . . what? a skeptical reading of Scripture which does not draw the threads out of both testaments which point to these daring images of Mary, which firmly fix the orthodox doctrine of God. Start with the burning bush and work from there.

You can’t have Scripture without Tradition. Scripture is, itself, tradition, which is why I bring up the table of contents. Where did it come from. What authority determined which books to include and which to admit? I don’t know if you belong to a Church which holds to the Creeds. But every time you say the words “Incarnation” or “Trinity” you are affirming Sacred Tradition. Every time you affirm that the Holy spirit is a Divine Person rather than a messenger of God, you are affirming Sacred Tradition. Every time you say that Sacred Scripture is the inspired and inerrant word of God, you are affirmng Tradition. Yet I doubt that you would hold any of these things to be merely the “word of men.”

Step back from the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Chris, and start with your primary premise that Scripture is your sole rule of faith. Study how the canon of Scripture was determined and place it in the hands of the early Church which wrote it. Then come back and try to defend your position that tradition is merely “faith in the word of men.” You will not be able to do that without dismissing the Holy Spirit and the Bible along with him.

Even R. C. Sproul, a very strong Protestant teacher and Christian apologist with outstanding academic credentials, winds up deflated by saying: For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books but for Protestants the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

You would think by that understanding that Protestants would be more vulnerable than Catholics to producing “traditions of men” than Catholics. In fact, that is exactly what happens when they claim that the Bible must be the sole rule of faith.

Godspeed, my young brother. You’re in for a big adventure.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

How can you demonstrate to me that your traditions are as reliable as the bible? I know that the bible was inspired by God. I don’t know who inspired tradition.

The bible never calls Mary the Queen of heaven, says she remained a virgin, helped Christ redeem us as a co-redeemer, or that she ascended into heaven. If it’s not written in the bible, you can throw it out.

That source you’re quoting doesn’t speak for all protestants. I’ve never held the view he’s talking about.

 

[catsrus]

It would be interesting to hear from some converts who now have a devotion to Mary for their perspectives.

I grew up a protestant in the evangelical lutheran church. I was catachized to believe that Mary had other children, the so called “brothers and sisters” mentioned in the Bible and the modern understanding of Matt 1:25
However, I always had a problem with this because I envisioned Mary as Holy, even when I was a child, and could not understand how she could have de-sanctified (if there is such a word) her womb that had held The Son of God.
After having my heart and eyes opened to Holy Mother Church and becoming a Catholic, all my questions and misunderstandings were put to rest.
My intellect and heart jumped with joy on learning the truth about our Holy Mother and knowing that my unrest about what I’d been taught was justified.
Though I knew nothing of Catholicism for years, I still knew there was something very wrong about what I’d been taught of Mary.

 

[Your_Brother]

Mary was the “Virgin Mother” of Jesus and the Holy Spirit did overshadow Mary’s imperfectness creating the perfect human, Jesus Christ.

However how do we know if Mary and Joseph did not concieve more children. The Bible tells us so in Matthew 13:55-56

"Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 5And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?”

How do we know these were not spiritual brothers. The Bible tells us that also in John 7: 3:5

John 7:3 “There his “brothers” said to him, pass on over from here and go into Judea in order that your disciples also may behold the works you do”

John 7:5 “His brothers were also not excercising faith in him”

Mary and Joseph were married and all we have to go off of is what is written in the Bible to see they did conceive more children that were half brothers and sisters to Jesus.

 

[mercygate]

Chris LaRock:

I know that the bible was inspired by God.

With all respect, Chris, R. C. Sproul is a learned man of deep spirituality and great good will with a doctorate in theology.

Let me ask you how you “know that the bible was inspired by God.” Why do you believe that?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

mercygate:

With all respect, Chris, R. C. Sproul is a learned man of deep spirituality and great good will with a doctorate in theology.

Let me ask you how you “know that the bible was inspired by God.” Why do you believe that?

It had to have been. The tremendous amounts of prophecy and scientific information testifies to the divine origin of the scriptures. Long before man knew about germs, the bible was telling people about sanitation.

Mr. Sproul may be a bright man, but he doesn’t speak for all protestants.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

It had to have been. The tremendous amounts of prophecy and scientific information testifies to the divine origin of the scriptures.

Doesn’t prove a thing. Muslims say the same thing about the Quran, after all. So what or where else would you point that would make you say the Bible is the inspired word of God?

 

[exoflare]

Chris LaRock:

It had to have been. The tremendous amounts of prophecy and scientific information testifies to the divine origin of the scriptures. Long before man knew about germs, the bible was telling people about sanitation.

That’s a blanket statement if I ever heard one. Are you saying that you’ve read every single one of the books that were up for canonization in the early days of the Church, and could have told all by yourself exactly which ones were inspired or not inspired by God? If so, I’d really love to know the exact criteria you’re using!

 

[Truthseeker4]

LittleDeb:

The Catholic Bible I read has a very definitive statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is in the gospel of John. “Behold your mother, Woman behold your son.”

John 19:26-27 (NAB)
When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27
Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Anyway, that was the phrase that helped a friend of mine struggling during RCIA come all the way home. She realized that there would have been no need to give Mary to John if she had other children.

I am coming to the realization that this may be true. She didn’t have any other children. Just a thought here that I have been mulling over.
After realizing this one simple truth she studied the ECF in depth and learned about the Jewish laws of the time period and why Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Would you be able to provide some information on the Jewish laws that she studied? Anyone else can provide the information too. I am interested in her findings.

Melissa

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I take it you are an athiest? They often attack the bible as being the word of man, rather than God.

The bible is filled with accurate prophecies. Almost every aspect of the life of Jesus Christ was predicted in the Old Testament. There are several scientific facts in scripture that prove it to be not of man. The Koran has historic inaccuracies and contradicts itself. Do your own research about this.