S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
What agenda are you supporting here?
- Status
F
FCEGM
Guest
Yes, I know.
I was simply pointing out to Marie the verse which gives rise to the theological speculation.
T
twb1621
Guest
This may be useful to you;
The view of the Protoevangelium (whatever be its historical value) that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph of another marriage) was the most popular one until the time of St. Jerome, who argued that they were cousins instead.
Whatever view one takes, any notion that the brethren of the Lord were other children of the Virgin Mary was certainly anathema to early orthodox Christianity as can be gathered from
the following statement of Pope St. Siricius:
“Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and Your Grace has rightly abhorred it, that from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth.”¹
The Lateran Council in 649 proclaimed emphatically the perpetual virginity
of Mary:
“If anyone does not properly and truly confess according to the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God, the ever-Virgin and immaculate Mary, in these latter days,
properly and truly conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she bore Him incorruptibly, her virginity remain-ing inviolable even after His birth, let him be condemned.”²
Belief in the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity was re-asserted during the first decades of the Protestant reformation:
“This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favored the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual
virginity.”³
Ironically, the founders of Protestantism, unlike their modern-day disciples,
strictly defended the same teaching. Martin Luther said:
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a
virgin … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly
intact.”
4
“I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really
mean cousins here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins
brothers.”
5
Ulrich Zwingli, another major Protestant leader (1484-1531), even more
adamantly stated:
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as
a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth
and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”
6
Like the Protoevangelium of St. James, a number of distinguished Catholic
commentators, including St. Thomas Aquinas, also hold that the Virgin
Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity before being betrothed
to St. Joseph. The Jews, during the four centuries before Christ, had begun
to develop a concept of consecrated virginity, particularly in the
community of the Essenes. Knowledge of this vow of virginity explains
why Mary was so perplexed after the Angel Gabriel announced to her that
she was about to bear a son.
additional information at;
lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page215.html
Also see:
cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cant help thinking about, not the hundreds, the thousands of priest who as you say we should not reject, that are abusing our children, abusing women on the quiet, in the case of my parish priest at my first holy communion, running off with the housekeeper. As a catholic, whenever this subject would rear its ugly head, i would prepare myself for my non catholic friends who would have a field day. I looked on them with disdain, explaining that would it be the case that the whole british army was rotten to the core, and should be disbanded because of a well publicised child abuser arrested at the army barracks. But now that its abundantly clear that only the minority of priests have a real calling, are we just to pretend that all is well.Do you have any supporting documentation for your assertions that most priests are corrupt?
What percentage would you say are pedophiles?
What percentage are having affairs with women?
What percentage are stealing from the Church collection baskets?
Show us some facts with documentation when making assertions like this.
Thanks.
N
NDN
Guest
So if Mary had other children who should have cared for her after Jesus death, where were they? Why did Jesus give His mother into the care of another man? This would have been an affront to her children if she had any. Pax Christi
H
hopefull
Guest
Three things to comment on from prior postings:
Hopefull.
- celebate doesn’t just mean unmarried; it means not engaging in sexual activity.
- how can anyone say that perpetual virginity didn’t have a place in Jewish history. Some prophets were celibate and some weren’t. What about the Nazarite vow? What about John the Baptist? What about the Essenes? What about JESUS? What about Paul’s encouragement of not marrying?
- How can anyone say that Joseph was not afraid to take Mary into his home? Of course he was. God sent an angel to reassure him in a dream.
Hopefull.
B
BrianH
Guest
The original question had to do with Eusebius. In this book there is a distinction between brother and cousin as I posted previously:
B
BrianH
Guest
The next thing I wanted to add was to answer the question about the Greek having a word for cousin
The word is Anepsios.
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him ;
The word is Anepsios.
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him ;
P
paul_c
Guest
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**It is obvious. In this thread many can not see the immense difference between the divine Holy Family and any family we know.
This is not only unworthy of any Christian no matter of which denomination. In fact “Christians” who see in Holy Mary “a woman as any” discarded being a Christian long ago.
Who argues, referring to the Holy Family: “how could a married couple remain celibate for life?” is as far from the reality of God, as far from being a Christian, as a brainless is away from a chair of philosophy.
In these inveterate unteachable cases, every reasonable explanation to why the Church of course teaches the everlasting virginity of Holy Mary, is in vain.
As much as this question is naturally and clear to Christians, they never will understand the difference between divine nature and the nature of human normality and regulations, into which they press God and the Divine Family.
The question remains, how should they ever defend such secularization of the Holiest to God, when they face Him?
**
This is not only unworthy of any Christian no matter of which denomination. In fact “Christians” who see in Holy Mary “a woman as any” discarded being a Christian long ago.
Who argues, referring to the Holy Family: “how could a married couple remain celibate for life?” is as far from the reality of God, as far from being a Christian, as a brainless is away from a chair of philosophy.
In these inveterate unteachable cases, every reasonable explanation to why the Church of course teaches the everlasting virginity of Holy Mary, is in vain.
As much as this question is naturally and clear to Christians, they never will understand the difference between divine nature and the nature of human normality and regulations, into which they press God and the Divine Family.
The question remains, how should they ever defend such secularization of the Holiest to God, when they face Him?
**
E
Epeenchin
Guest
I also think that after Jesus was born , Mary and Joseph lived happily as husband and wife and had other children together it was mentioned in the gospel that Jesus Mother and siblings were looking for him I did read somewhere in the bible …
P
Pons
Guest
Our predecessors knew what they were talking about and they lived closer to biblical times, why not trust them? It does make a whole lot of difference as others have said because it’s between truth and untruth. Also making celibacy and marital relations opposed to each other is wrong since they complement each other. Not all are called to be celibate, and not all are called to “go forth and multiply” (among other aspects of marriage).
S
shannyk
Guest
Code:
Two or three brief points.
(1) Matt. 1:25 clearly suggests that Joseph and Mary were united in physical union as husband and wife after Jesus was born.
(2) The several references to the brothers of Jesus needs to be weighed.
(3) But, really now, why is it so important that Mary remained a virgin? One of the beautiful aspects of happy married life is expressing love through sexual relations. To m.“…but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.”
"…but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;
“…and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”
But first, a word about “firstborn”
Many ancient texts include the word “firstborn” (proto-tokon)
According to the Orthodox Study Bible, “firstborn” means having been born first, and never implies the birth of others. It is common in scripture and ancient writings to show that something is the “only” using the word “first” in order to emphasize pre-eminence, elevation or honor.
Here are some cross references using the same Greek word to illustrate this:
See Isaiah 44:5 - “I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other”
Code:
See Psalm 88:27 - “I will set Him firstborn high among the kings of the earth”And now, a brief study of the concept of “until” as used in Matthew 1:25a
Code:
"...but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."“…and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”
Code:
The Greek word most often translated as "until" is eos (pronounced āōs), and is negated by ouk at the beginning of the phrase, meaning "not."The Greek conjunction eos (till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside
Here are some cross references to illustrate that ouk…eos it more accurately translated as “not until this important event, but still not after” (i.e. never.)
Code:
1) Note Luke 2:36-37, the story of Christ's Presentation at the Temple. The verse describes Anna the prophetess as having lived with her husband for 7 years after their marriage, and then, "she has lived as a widow until (eos) ." At the time of The Presentation of Christ she is still a widow, and will continue to be so after this. The "boundary" historical event is the Presentation of Christ.
2) Another good example of this is Acts 8:40. The verse says "Phillip.... traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until (eos) he reached Caesarea" Did Phillip the deacon preach the gospel after he reached Caesarea? Of course he did. The "boundary" historical event is Phillip the deacon's arrival in Caesarea and the word eos is used to denote the importance of this event. He preached before, until this significant event, and still after.
3) Another example is Matthew 24:21, where the use of the word (eos) as having an action as continuing into the future is actually clarified in the text: "then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until (eos) now – and never to be equaled again." This great distress has not been seen until now, and still, will never be seen again.
4) See John 5:17. Jesus is speaking: "My Father is always at work to (eos) this very day, and I, too am working." or "My Father has been working until (eos) now...""My Father is still working, (eos) and I also am working." Clearly Jesus did not mean that His Father was working only until that very day, but still. Jesus' presence on earth was a "boundary" historical event. The Father worked until that day, and still afterwards.
5) other examples: Genesis 8.7 "Noah...sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro till the waters were dried up from the earth."
Psalm 110.1 "the Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool."
See also Isaiah 22.15, Matt 12.20, 1 Tim 4.13, Psalm 90.2, Psalm 72.7Believe it or not, it is not difficult to argue (using only modern Biblical exegetical methods) that the position of the Catholic Church of the Ever-Virginity of Mary is true. However the most significant argument in this discussion is not the Biblical evidence, but that it has simply always been the teaching of the Church. Any contradictory views were always considered heretical. This alternate view did not gain momentum until after the Protestant reformation, after which many of the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, and especially anything which appeared “Popish” (or Roman Catholic) had been thrown out entirely.
Does it make any difference? Well it obviously does. Truth always makes a difference. The Church has held the Ever Virginity of Mary as Truth since the very beginning. If you want to refute the authority of the Church, that is another thing entirely.
B
BrianH
Guest
I see it quite different. I understand the need to characterize those who disagree with everything you have been taught as unchristian. However, this is nothing about marital relations or having a family that demeans Joseph, Mary or their children. If you think that God is so concerned about that, I think that you are missing the big picture.
B
BrianH
Guest
There is no such thing as virgins committed to the Temple in Judaism. It is a later developing legend that has no historical support. Jews did not do that.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Then you are thinking heretically.
Fine, just as long as you don’t persuade yourself otherwise.
S
SeanTom
Guest
The term “brother” has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to brothers germane or half brothers. The same goes for “sister” and the plural “brethren”. Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi; Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren”, the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22)
The terms “brethren“, “brother“, and “sister“ did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant only a kinsman (Dt 23:8; Jer 34:9). The words could mean even people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (1 Kings 9:13, 20:12). Or just an ally (Amos 1:9).
Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, had a special word meaning “cousin“. Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother“ or a circumlocution, such as “the son of the sister of my father“. Using a circumlocution was clumsy way to speak, so they naturally fell to using the word “brother“. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brethren“ to mean both cousins and sons of the same father - plus other relatives and even non-relatives. To determine just what “brethren“ or “brother“ or “sister“ means in any one verse, we must look at the context. When we do that, we may see insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “the son of Mary“ (Mk 6:3), not as “a son of Mary“. If the words “a son of Mary“ were used, then that might infer that there were other sons, but the words were “THE son of Mary“. The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary‘s sons, not even when they are called Jesus‘ “brethren“. If they were in fact her sons, this would be a strange usage. I do find it strange that many of the persons named in the Bible are referred to as “______, the son or daughter of _______”. Other than Jesus, I can recall no reference to any of Jesus‘ alleged brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, or Judas as being referred to as “a son of Mary or Joseph“.
The other argument used by some concerns the term “first-born.” They say Jesus could not be called Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. This is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant that child who opened the womb (Ex 13:2, Nb3:12). Under the Mosaic law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex 34-20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Not hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her “first-born”. Does this mean that she had other children AFTER her death? Not hardly. The words “first born” does not necessarily mean that there were others. In Laws of Inheritance, the words “first son” was used quite often since the “first son” inherited his father’s estate. Even though there may be only one son, he was still referred to as the “first son”. “First son” was frequently used in biblical times.
Are we not all brothers and sisters of Christ??
As for me personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether Jesus had other bloodline brothers and sisters born of his Mother Mary after the virgin birth. My faith is not dependent on the historical value of the Bible. I base my faith on the “messages” that are conveyed to me through holy scripture. I ask the Holy Spirit to give me the knowledge to understand the message that Christ wants me to receive. I am very dedicated to my faith as it pertains to the moral, faith and salvation teachings of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the church in all areas, but that in no way effects my standing with my Christian beliefs. The Catholic Church is my foundation, and supports me in my quest to become a better Christian, while at the same time seeking entrance into God‘s Kingdom…
The terms “brethren“, “brother“, and “sister“ did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant only a kinsman (Dt 23:8; Jer 34:9). The words could mean even people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (1 Kings 9:13, 20:12). Or just an ally (Amos 1:9).
Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, had a special word meaning “cousin“. Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother“ or a circumlocution, such as “the son of the sister of my father“. Using a circumlocution was clumsy way to speak, so they naturally fell to using the word “brother“. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brethren“ to mean both cousins and sons of the same father - plus other relatives and even non-relatives. To determine just what “brethren“ or “brother“ or “sister“ means in any one verse, we must look at the context. When we do that, we may see insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “the son of Mary“ (Mk 6:3), not as “a son of Mary“. If the words “a son of Mary“ were used, then that might infer that there were other sons, but the words were “THE son of Mary“. The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary‘s sons, not even when they are called Jesus‘ “brethren“. If they were in fact her sons, this would be a strange usage. I do find it strange that many of the persons named in the Bible are referred to as “______, the son or daughter of _______”. Other than Jesus, I can recall no reference to any of Jesus‘ alleged brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, or Judas as being referred to as “a son of Mary or Joseph“.
The other argument used by some concerns the term “first-born.” They say Jesus could not be called Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. This is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant that child who opened the womb (Ex 13:2, Nb3:12). Under the Mosaic law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex 34-20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Not hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her “first-born”. Does this mean that she had other children AFTER her death? Not hardly. The words “first born” does not necessarily mean that there were others. In Laws of Inheritance, the words “first son” was used quite often since the “first son” inherited his father’s estate. Even though there may be only one son, he was still referred to as the “first son”. “First son” was frequently used in biblical times.
Are we not all brothers and sisters of Christ??
As for me personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether Jesus had other bloodline brothers and sisters born of his Mother Mary after the virgin birth. My faith is not dependent on the historical value of the Bible. I base my faith on the “messages” that are conveyed to me through holy scripture. I ask the Holy Spirit to give me the knowledge to understand the message that Christ wants me to receive. I am very dedicated to my faith as it pertains to the moral, faith and salvation teachings of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the church in all areas, but that in no way effects my standing with my Christian beliefs. The Catholic Church is my foundation, and supports me in my quest to become a better Christian, while at the same time seeking entrance into God‘s Kingdom…
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Well, I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary so I’ll stand by my claim. What dictionary are you referring to? “Continent” can mean not engaging in sexual activity. Celibacy means unmarried.
Prophets-Yes, some were celibate and some weren’t which again has nothing to do with virginity but only with marriage.
Nazirite vow-- Very few took this vow compared to the entire Jewish population. Also, it was not necessary for it to be a perpetual commitment, it could have been taken for only a certain period of time.
John the Baptist-- Where does it say he was a virgin? Let alone a perpetual one?
Essenes, what source do you know of that claims they were perpetual virgins? I’ve never read anything that suggested perpetual virginity for them.
Jesus–I don’t think we can say for sure that his choice of celibacy had anything to do with his being Jewish? Nowhere in the Bible does it say he chose that life because of his Jewish background. I’d think the dominate influence of a Jewish background would be to get married–go forth and multiply. The vast majority of Jews were married.
Paul–you’re taking one verse in one letter, reading it apart from the rest of Paul’s letters, the Bible, and all of Church teaching. Yes, Paul in 1 Cor made the statement that he wished all should be unmarried like him but as a concession he could recommend marriage. You have to read that in context. You can’t conclude that he was simply and permanently recommending celibacy over marriage in all situations and for all times. Besides, we have no idea whether or not Paul was ever married. He was unmarried at the time of his writing the letter, but we don’t know if he was a widower, or divorced, or later married. And, again the issue of celibacy is related to but different from virginity.
Cheers
T
twb1621
Guest
One must read the full Church History to understand what is being said in this regard;
Fathers of the Church
Church History; Book III
Eusebius
- One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.
- The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.
- But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
**4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. ** - fourteen epistles are well and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the , saying that it is disputed by the , on the ground that it was not written by . But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.
- But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the , has made mention among others of , to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the . Hence, as we , it has been publicly read in , and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.
- This will serve to show the that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm.
T
twb1621
Guest
“Book 1…Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
- Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in of the , has been to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by , who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the . After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
- For whereas the were reckoned in either according to nature or according to law—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated—
- whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
- Thus neither of the is in , for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
- But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of , the son of Melchi.
- Status