Mary and her children

[SPH1]

As for the “Until” argument, I understand that John Calvin supported St. Jerome as against Helvidius (sp?), saying he was a fool to interpret “until” as necessarily meaning that Mary had sex afterwards.

As for the “Protestant Position”, it depends upon the particular Protestant group and time in history. I understand that Luther supported the perpetual virginity of Mary and that Calvin could live with it. Neither found Scripture to necessarily go against that belief. Here is a guest article on my old site from a former Presbyterian (Calvinist): The Reformers vs. the Fundamentalists

shasta.com/sphaws/reformersvsfundies.html

Much of Protestantism has today been influenced by the “Radical Reformation”, going further from the ancient Catholic Faith with regard to Mary. Not so for much of earlier Protestantism.

Here’s my question: Where are the supposed “descendants” of Mary today? With all of her “children”, there should be lines today who can trace themselves back to their great, great, great, etc. grandmother: Mary, mother of God.

And to their great, great, great etc. uncle: God Himself!

Why are they not around proudly waiving that hereditary flag?

 

[Tom]

Leviticus 25:49
An **uncle **or a **cousin **or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.

Or as in Gn chapter 14:
www.drbo.org:

Gn 14,12 And Lot also, the son of Abram’s brother,

So, Abram is the uncle and Lot is the nephew, right?
www.drbo.org:

Gn 14,14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.

But according to your logic they must be blood brothers, right? Maybe it was a different “Lot”. After there must have been…. A Lot… LOL
Sorry, my humor is so cheezy…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Hi! That was very strange, however - the first time I came to this thread, only Randy Carson’s messages showed. This time, yours popped in, before his!

Yeah! You see how tired I was - my posts were even playing hide and seek!

Matthew 1:25 - in Biblical times the use of until didn’t have the meaning it does now. It made a statement at a certain time, with absolutely no implications as to afterwards.

Think about the modern meaning of until that you are ascribing to this verse. In the modern usage, it implies that the action is perform at the moment of mention. For instance:

Jerry was single until his wedding day. - at the moment of mention, his wedding day, he immediately became married.

Ellen fasted until noon. - at the moment of mention, noon, she immediately ate.

The usage does not imply that sometime in the future, not immediately but definitely in the future it must occur. For instance:

Hank couldn’t see until he put on his glasses. - thie doesn’t imply that he put on his glasses and then a week later could see. No, at the moment of mention, putting on the glasses, he could immediately see.

Apply this usage, which you advocate, to the verse “but knew her not until she had borne a son” and it gets very strange. Are we to believe that they had relations that night right after Jesus was born - which is the moment of mention?

No, no, no!!! This usage is the older meaning, used almost exclusively (I say almost because I have not encountered anywhere that this is not the case, but I have not exhaustively searched) in Scriptures. This usage describes a condition up to a point in time, but makes no indication of the condition afterwards. For instance, in the Old Testament we see alot of:

And such and such a marker stands until this day. - we cannot take it to mean that that very day the marker came down. But, it is very likely that over the course of thousands of years that the marker could have succumbed to weather or hostile forces.

I will assume that Randy has summarised these? If he missed anything, please let me know

I don’t know. I haven’t read his posts too closely. I will probably just chime in to where the thread is at now.

 

[mayra_hart]

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers. “May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen.”

 

[NotWorthy]

2nd Samuel 6:23 - And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death.

Are you saying she died in childbirth?

 

[Trelow]

“Our Mother of Perpetual Pregnancy”.

And, yes, I looked it up. No where is she given that title!

I think my wife would qualify.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Some say that certain NT books may have originally been written in Hebrew (IIRC, this theory is popular among some Messianic Jews) and that what we have are copies of the Greek translations. Even if the inspired autographs were in Greek, they may have been committed to writing from an Aramaic oral tradition – in which case they wouldn’t have changed “brothers” into the Greek word for “cousin”

Unfortunately, “some say” =/= “truth”. Ifs and Maybes don’t score any points in trying to show that the Roman Catholic doctrine is biblically based.

Also, in the Bible where it speaks of Jesus’ “brothers” – they may not have been able to use the Aramaic expression you talk about in your link with facility because the group of people referred to as “brothers” may not all have been sons of a father’s brother – some of the “brothers” may have been sons of a father’s sister for example. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I do see what you mean, but you are still in the ‘it is possible’ area. “Possible” is not grounds for doctrine. “Possible” does not make the Perpetual Virginity Biblically sound.

Also, the question to ask is what did the early Church believe about this? The impression that I have – and please someone correct me if I’m mistaken – is that no one in the early centuries of Christian history contended that Mary had other children. Don’t you think that if she did, it would have been mentioned by the early Christians and that some would have spoken their disagreement with those saying that she didn’t?

So, you are saying that you would take ‘tradition’ over God’s word, where the two disagree?

Personally, I do not care if people for hundreds of years after Jesus claimed that he is not God. He claimed that he is God, and the Bible claims that he is God, and I will gladly hold the Bible over what anyone else says.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Please be a little more respectful.

I am sorry

Should I have said “I find it to be whacky”?

I just spent an entire year in a Protestant/Catholic bible study in which I had to endure these insults to the Blessed Mother. I am convinced that very little good can come from this sort of dialogue. It is a gift of faith to know who she is, just as our faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity is a gift. (the latter is not specifically mentioned in the bible, but is understood from apostolic teaching).

But do you not understand that whilst you view it as an insult to the ‘blessed mother’, we view what you do as an insult to God! Even in your position - what is worse? To insult Mary, or to insult God?

Well, now I’ve read through this entire thread and find this post to be evidence of your complete determination to reject anything, any evidence, that supports Catholic teaching.

Not at all!
If there were evidence, I would happily accept it. However, Tradition is not evidence, as that is a cyclic argument. Nor is the argument that “scriptures could mean this”, or else that same argument could be made to support a number of contradictory statements.

Much of what has been presented here is Biblical evidence for what we believe, and you simply do not agree with the interpretation.

Well, that is the point, no? You, likewise, do not agree with my interpretation, if you will. What you need to prove is why your interpretation is any better than the one I hold.

You’ve given evidence, too, but on neither side is there proof positive.

I am glad you acknowledge this - but if you acknowledge this, why you you suggest, above, that I should agree with your view?

Your unwillingness to even acknowledge that what we believe is at least reasonable betrays your true colors.

Ah, but there is a difference between something being a possible interpretation and a reasonable interpretation. As I have said, it is a possible interpretation that mary was always a virgin. However, I do not see it as reasonable - the arguments ‘disproving’ the named siblings has many, many holes, and thus is not reasonable. The linguistic approach to the “until” in Matthew 1 is weak at best. The claims that “brothers” meant “cousins” fails to acknowledge that there is a word for “cousin” in the New Testament. The idea that the Jews were saying “brother” as in “comrade” or the like makes Jesus’ response a little strange and meaningless. And no one has answered against the John 7 verses.

Honest people can see what the other side is saying, and sometimes even why they are saying it, but still reach a different conclusion themselves.

If you feel that I have not done so, then I am sorry. I will happily acknowledge that I am not the best speaker or conveyor of ideas in the written form of communication (I was trained as an engineer!). I also accept that much is lost in writing - lack of expression, tone, body language, and so forth. Plus, there is no opportunity for quick feedback, question’s of similar things.

So, do believe that I can see what Roman Catholics are saying. My issue is that it is not based on the Bible - rather, their interpretation of the Bible is based on their Traditions. Honestly - how many Roman Catholics have read those verses and come to the conclusion of “Perpetual Virginity” without any teaching or Tradition or ideas from other Roman Catholics?

-hvg3

 

[NotWorthy]

So, you are saying that you would take ‘tradition’ over God’s word, where the two disagree?

Well, let’s cross that bridge when we get there, for we haven’t gotten there, yet! And if we trust the promises of Christ (and I do! I do!), then we know that will never happen!

 

[victus]

So, do believe that I can see what Roman Catholics are saying. My issue is that it is not based on the Bible - rather, their interpretation of the Bible is based on their Traditions. Honestly - how many Roman Catholics have read those verses and come to the conclusion of “Perpetual Virginity” without any teaching or Tradition or ideas from other Roman Catholics?

-hvg3

I would love to know your rendering of Genesis 3:15.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I will review your argument and my own to see if there are any weaknesses; however, I feel that my own is a fairly strong explaination of the “brothers of Jesus” issue. Sufficiently strong to give pause to the skeptic, at least.

Hi Randy! I look forward to hearing your response to my thoughts on your explanations

I have attempted to provide an explanation from the exclusively from the Bible as a concession in order to help you, a non-Catholic who does not accept the validity of Church tradition, to understand.

Thanks After all, God’s Word is infallible, and thus any further ‘revelation’ would have to agree with it exactly.

Please understand that my own position ultimately actually rests on the historical record of the Church which has held that Mary remained ever-virgin for nearly two millenia. Your own belief is a novelty.

I can understand that, and will read through your responses. Naturally, I can only view them as a ‘novelty’ (can I say that? Is it OK to call other people’s beliefs “novelties”, but not “whacky”? personally, i would have thought the two terms were much closer together )

So, as to these big quotes, I have a few questions for you (as I do not know much about these sources )

The Protoevangelium of James - is this also called the “Gospel of James”? My first question is, if it was an authoritative document, why is it not in the NT canon?

From my limited knowledge of the book, your date of writing also looks a little young. Sure, maybe only by 30 or so years (150+ AD). It does not sound like it was part of the early church’s documents.

Origen - does not seem to say one way or another about the perpetual virginity. He states that others believed it (which I do not doubt), but that he says “those who say so” sounds like it was not everyone. That is, people also said she was not always a virgin. Thus, no consensus.

The last part of your quote has “perpetual” added in, and with it removed, simply says that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - another thing I do not argue against.

Something else interesting is shown here, however. The idea of perpetual virginity, says Origen was because of the “wish to preserve the honor of Mary”. That is, the belief is that sex with her husband could somehow dishonour her. How could this be? Is it not more of a dishonour to not follow God, who said “the two will become one flesh” (eg Matthew 19:5)?

Or ignore God’s instructions, through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:5 - “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

Or was Joseph also sinless, in that he could withstand all temptation?

Clearly, God’s purpose in marriage is for sexual intercourse, and through that, for the people to become one. What is marriage without sex?

Hilary of Poitiers - From here, we get close to the start of Roman Catholicism, so using said arguments does become quite cyclic. However, that a commentator on the Bible should reach the same incorrect conclusion does not make it any less incorrect. This discussion will not be won on votes

Anyway, the rest seem to be following in this area. The fact that they have the same ideas as you does not make either view correct - any more than if I were to quote their opponents (for surely such works as “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” had opponents ) it would be proof for me.

Both sides were present, so it is not the number that is important, but their arguments.

When we get as late as **Martin Luther **and friends, I cannot see the logic in claiming that he believed in it. He also believed in other things that Roman Catholics clearly do not - are all his beliefs correct?

He grew up in the Roman Catholic traditions, stepping out as much as he did was hard. So he didn’t shake everything off - it took time, generations. That is understandable. But trying to say “Luther believed it, so it must be true” simply does not work. Unless you are willing to say that he was infallible, and all his views were correct.

 

[SPH1]

So, do believe that I can see what Roman Catholics are saying. My issue is that it is not based on the Bible - rather, their interpretation of the Bible is based on their Traditions. Honestly - how many Roman Catholics have read those verses and come to the conclusion of “Perpetual Virginity” without any teaching or Tradition or ideas from other Roman Catholics?-hvg3

The problem with your view is that you apparently think that just anyone…even non-Christian (Hindu, etc.)…can simply pick up a Bible, read it and come to perfect understanding. It is a mistaken view.

One major problem with the notion of “sola scriptura” is that it leaves out God (the Holy Spirit) as a necessary ingredient of discerning truth. It is not possible to properly interpret Scripture without the aid of God. That is what Protestantism lacks.

 

[hvg3akaek]

(cont)

John 21:25
John reiterates that there was much more from the life of Jesus than was contained in his small book. As an eyewitness of those things, he would have been able to share those memories with those to whom he passed on the faith.

And clearly, the Roman Catholic Traditions do not contain them all, either. The whole world could not contain them - how much less one subset of that world!

Acts 1:2-3
Acts 8:14-17
1 Corinthians 11:2
1 Corinthians 11:23
Doesn’t this indicate that Paul’s preaching was “God-breathed” (theopneustos)?

If by “God-breathed”, you mean “infallible”, then no, not at all. It shows that he taught faithfully from what he was given.

If by “God-breathed” you mean simply that God used him, then yes. God uses many people. I would say he used my minister in the sermon he gave last night.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Paul declares that the teaching delivered to the Thessalonians is not that of men but is the word of God.

Great! For it was from Jesus, was it not?

If I walk up to a random person in the street, and tell them that God’s promised messiah, Jesus Christ, has died so that they may be forgiven, are my words from men or from God? If I taught people the above claim, would by teaching be of men or of God?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
2 Timothy 1:13
2 Timothy 2:2

Great - no disagreement in any of those. I am not saying that people cannot teach. I am saying that their teaching is not infallible.

They taught what they heard Jesus teach - if they did this accurately, then there is no problem. Today, if someone teaches what the bible teaches, then there is no problem. The problem only arises if they teach what the bible does not teach, or teach something that contradicts the bible.

 

[hvg3akaek]

1 Peter 1:23-25

Peter declares that the message already preached to the Church throughout the provinces is the “living and enduring word of God”. Peter’s letter (scripture) witnesses to the Apostles’ preaching (Tradition).No, it merely says that the Apostles did well in preaching God’s word. The “living and enduring word of God” was what was preached. Not the preaching was the “living and enduring word of God”.

2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[hvg3akaek]

The point of my post was simply to answer your question, “What is this Mary and the Ark thing”. I answered it, you just say, “Wow, you guys are out there”!

Yep, and thanks for letting me know about it. I admit, I was shocked and surprised. It certainly does go a bit of the way to explain some of the ideas held about Mary. But, I still see no firm foundation for the mary/ark thing…

Please don’t misinterpret Hvg’s words.

He’s not casting stones at Mary, he’s casting stones at what we “have elevevated Mary to”.

Thanks

Yes - these are the words I would have tried to use if words were more cooperative with me I have most definitely no intention of insulting Mary. (Nor do I have any intention of insulting Roman Catholics!) Questioning beliefs, yes. Showing where beliefs lack solid foundations, certainly.

-hvg3

 

[hvg3akaek]

Why is it that when given a perfectly rational explanation for the question at hand you dismiss that argument so vehemently with arguements that simply have no more validity than the arguments you are dismissing?

Are you saying that the two arguments have equal validity? If so, how can you so decisively choose one, and claim the other to be incorrect?

Personally, I see it ‘possible, but not probable’ that Mary was always a virgin. Naturally, it is obviously possible. However, the statements in the gospels, the naming of siblings, the idea of marriage, these all go against that idea. I do not stay unconvinced out of stubbornness, or by thinking that my arguments have no more validity than the other options - I think they have a lot more validity! Hence why I believe what I believe.

Until quite recently, the perpetual virginity of Mary was never in doubt.

I am sorry, but if that were the case…who were Hilary etc arguing against?

Why is it so important to a protestant that Mary had sex and Jesus had brothers?
From a protestant perspective what does it have to do with the Gospel?
What other purpose does taking the position serve other than an attempt to disprove Catholic teaching?

Ah, but you see? Therein lies the game. Does the protestants beliefs come crashing down if Mary was always a virgin? No, not at all. But does the Roman Catholics beliefs come crashing down if Mary was not always a virgin? I would say so… (correct me if I am wrong)

The matter is of little importance to me - but the evidence is in favour of my position. However, to you and yours, the issue is fundamental. After all - if it were wrong, the whole infallibility question comes into play!

After all, I only started this topic as an off-shoot from the sola scripture one. Again, I highly expected it to head back there, but it was still called for, so I wrote it up.

The starting claim (quoted in the first post) had two parts, neither of which have been shown to be correct (and only really the first one has been argued for)

The point is that neither the Catholic nor the Protestant position can be “proven” from scripture.

As I said, I expected as much (even though I still think a “blank slate” reading of the given passages would end with a protestant viewpoint.)

However, the claim initially made was:

“…unlike the common Protestant understanding of Mary which is in direct conflict with Scripture.”

No one at all has shown me how this can be the case. And some people, such as yourself, seem to disagree with it.

As with many of the positions taken by Protestants and Catholics both sides can be supported by versus of scripture and the various interpretations presented for those versus.

“supported”, not really. I still have found no support for the all-time virginity of Mary from Scripture. Some people have shown me how to interpret it differently so as to minimise the contradictions, but even if the interpretations were correct, they do not support the idea.

When taking Scripture in its entirety it is completely rational and logical to beleive in Catholic teaching.

That is as of yet to be shown.

Previous posters have laid out a perfectly rational explantation to the texts in question that is in alignment with the long standing Christian Tradition.

The problem, once again, is that the ‘alternate interpretations’ simply strive to cause little or no conflict, not to support the ideas. I want no contradictions and support!

You haven’t even acknowledged that it “could” be a correct interpretation.

I do believe I have…even in this post, I have said “possible but not probable”. But, even if it were a possible correct interpretation, it still does not support the idea - that is, you still need to come at the text with your initial view, and read it in.

Take this for what it’s worth, but it is certainly reasonable to conclude from reading your posts that you are here to present your truth and dispute Catholic teaching.

If you really are here to learn Catholic teaching, you might want to take this observation into account when formulating your posts.

Ah, we might have some conflicting ideas here. I want to learn of Roman Catholic teaching. I do not want to sit down and learn them in that I want to accept them. Not until I know them to be truth, anyway.

I want to learn them because I want to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, in that I am examining the Scriptures to see if what Roman Catholicism teaches is true. I hope you do that too!

 

[NotWorthy]

Yep, and thanks for letting me know about it. I admit, I was shocked and surprised. It certainly does go a bit of the way to explain some of the ideas held about Mary. But, I still see no firm foundation for the mary/ark thing…

It is simply one of the many beautiful teachings of the Church that other Faith’s don’t adhere to.

A convert to our church who attends my class, one who is a most knowledgable bible scholar, said it best: “In the past my bible studies were like elementary school. Since studying the Bible as a Catholic, I feel like I’m in college, now”.

Thanks

Yes - these are the words I would have tried to use if words were more cooperative with me

You mean like noting the difference in “novelties” and “whacky”?!?!?

I have most definitely no intention of insulting Mary. (Nor do I have any intention of insulting Roman Catholics!) Questioning beliefs, yes. Showing where beliefs lack solid foundations, certainly.

Sometime our emotions get in the way, and we think any attack on the teachings of Mary is an attack on Mary. My apologies for any “rude accusations” due to this.

 

[NotWorthy]

Origen - does not seem to say one way or another about the perpetual virginity. He states that others believed it (which I do not doubt), but that he says “those who say so” sounds like it was not everyone. That is, people also said she was not always a virgin. Thus, no consensus.

So what does Origen say?

Origen

"For if Mary, as those who declare *with sound mind*     extol her, had no
other son but Jesus, yet Jesus says to His mother, 'Woman,     behold thy son,'
and not 'Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually     says to her, 'Lo,
this is Jesus whom thou didst bear.'  It is not the case     that everyone who is
perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him, and     if Christ lives
in him, then it is said of him to Mary: 'Behold, thy son     Christ.' "  ---
Origin, Commentary on John, 1:6 (232 A.D.)

Evidently, Origen feels that those who claim Mary was ever-virgin are the ones with the sound mine.

BTW, do you think this would get him in trouble on the Forums?!?

 

[Nicene]

I think the most interesting part of the protestant position is that the next in line (if Mary had other children) assumes the throne. Which would have undermined everything Christ taught and in fact encapsulated and fulfilled the Jewish belief of an earthly kingdom.

The Da Vinci code actually has credibility as far as lineage, except from a perspective of Mary (Jesus Mother) instead of Magdeline. The protestant position supports and gives credence to an earthly throne and Kingdom.

For example. James is insisted by many protestants to be Jesus immediate sibling. Which would mean that James was actually the King after Jesus death, and why he assumed the position he did in Jerusalem.

From a protestant perspective, according to Jewish law, James immediately became King upon Jesus death.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[hvg3akaek]

But Matt 1:25 says, in your understanding, that they had relations immediately after Jesus was born. The only public proof of that would have been that Mary had a child 9 months after Jesus was born. What proof do you have that Mary had a child 9 months after Jesus was born. If you cannot prove that, then your understanding of Matt 1:25 is in error.

Immediately? I think they were a little busy with the shepherds arriving, and the barn animals and so forth. Oh yes, and the pain. Bleeding and ripping and all that usually happens in births.

Some time after? That is more likely.

Anyway, you again ask for public proof - but what public proof would there have been for no sex? Yes, a baby 9 months down the track proves the case of one sexual encounter (except for Jesus, that is). But it hardly proves either way for any others in that 9 month period.

Likewise, “no baby” is simply no proof. “Lack of proof” for a statement does not equal “Proof” of the opposite statement. Thus, not being able to prove a child 9 months younger than Jesus does not prove a lack of sexual activity. It certainly does not show that my “understanding of Matt 1:25 is in error”

You tell me. You’re the one who brought the passage up. You tell me how he knew what he knew.

The question was because (you? someone else?) thought it important for Matthew to know that they had no sex. The only important thing for Matthew to get across was that there was no sex before Jesus was born. After that, he did not have to show anything. However, knowing of Jesus’ siblings, he could guess that Joseph and Mary did consummate their marriage after Jesus was born.

Finally - Matthew is inspired in his writing, no? His gospel is God-breathed? Why could not this knowledge simply have come from God? That was the purpose of the question, the simple answer in all cases…