Mary's perpetual virginity

[clh1217]

It’s like talking to a wall. James ‘the brother of the Lord’ was, and the Tradition on this has ALWAYS been perfectly clear, one of the APOSTLES fer crying out loud, he was the very same Apostle James who wasn’t the brother of John.

James was thus with Jesus his ‘brother’ from the beginning of His ministry like the rest of the 12 and NEVER disbelieved in Him even if others of Jesus’ kinsfolk did. Nowhere does scripture say that ALL of Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers, even if some of them were. I’d like to see where it says that ALL of them were, and I’d like to see in particular where it is even hinted that James ever was.

you can stumble and fumble through Mary’s PV until you are blue.

Catholic teachings however defy scriptural proof opposing the PV.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

In Greek there are words both for brother adelphos and for cousin anepsios (as in Colossians 4:10).

Which I fully understand why the Catholic church teaches her people that the bible really says “cousins” when in fact, …upon using PROPER study…proves otherwise.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament could have employed anepsios if James, Joses and the others were merely Jesus’ cousins. He could have used the word suggenes (as in Luke 1:36) if they were relatives. But of course He didn’t. The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers! REAL LIVE BIOLOGICAL BROTHERS!

However, they were UNBELIEVERS.

When did Jesus spare people’s “feelings” when He was doing the Father’s Will??? Did Jesus care much about cultural “law” when it came to doing what was right???

Those are just questions to ponder…

Jesus would rather entrust His believing Mother to the care of His beloved disciple John, than to His unbelieving half-brothers.

Wouldn’t YOU?

 

[LilyM]

you can stumble and fumble through Mary’s PV until you are blue.

Catholic teachings however defy scriptural proof opposing the PV.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

In Greek there are words both for brother adelphos and for cousin anepsios (as in Colossians 4:10).

Which I fully understand why the Catholic church teaches her people that the bible really says “cousins” when in fact, …upon using PROPER study…proves otherwise.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament could have employed anepsios if James, Joses and the others were merely Jesus’ cousins. He could have used the word suggenes (as in Luke 1:36) if they were relatives. But of course He didn’t. The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers! REAL LIVE BIOLOGICAL BROTHERS!

However, they were UNBELIEVERS.

When did Jesus spare people’s “feelings” when He was doing the Father’s Will??? Did Jesus care much about cultural “law” when it came to doing what was right???

Those are just questions to ponder…

Jesus would rather entrust His believing Mother to the care of His beloved disciple John, than to His unbelieving half-brothers.

Wouldn’t YOU?

I’ve told you several times James was Jesus’ ‘brother’ and was very much a believer - he was in fact one of the twelve. You seem to have the internet version of selective deafness - you skip over any point that is inconvenient to you.

This is a matter, not of Jewish cultural law, but of the law of familial love that God engrains both into the human heart and into His ten commandments. Jesus was human and surely loved His mother and brothers deeply.

Mary who He loved would surely have been happier with her own believing ‘son’ James than the stranger John, and Jesus surely would’ve wanted her happiness above all. It is also a matter of respect and love for His ‘brother’ James who had believed, who had estranged himself from the rest of the family for Jesus’ sake, and gone through everything with Him as one of His chosen twelve, and would’ve been happier having Mary with him.

So tell me now - why, contrary to every law of familial love that is written by God in the human heart, and contrary to everything He was brought up to know about how families worked, didn’t Jesus give Mary to her believing ‘son’ James, and why did Mary never choose to go to James when she could?

 

[jpy15026]

The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers! REAL LIVE BIOLOGICAL BROTHERS!

Wrong!

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon
80ἀδελφός adelphos /ad·el·fos/]. (346 occurrences)
1 a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.
2 having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman.
3 any fellow or man.
4 a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5 an associate in employment or office.
6 brethren in Christ

**Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary

BROTHER, BRETHREN, BROTHERHOOD, BROTHERLY
adelphos (80) denotes “a brother, or near kinsman”; in the plural, “a community based on identity of origin or life.” It is used of:
(1) male children of the same parents, Matt, 1:2; 14:3;
(2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5;
(3) male children of the same mother, Matt. 13:55; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19;
(4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Rom. 9:3. With “men” (aner, “male”), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Acts 2:29, 37,
(5) any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matt. 5:22; 7:3;
(6) persons united by a common interest, Matt. 5:47;
(7) persons united by a common calling, Rev. 22:9;
(8) mankind, Matt. 25:40; Heb. 2:17;
(9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt. 28:10; John 20:17;
(10) believers, apart from sex, Matt. 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 19:10 (the word “sisters” is used of believers, only in 1 Tim. 5:2);
(11) believers, with aner, “male,” prefixed, and with “or sister” added, 1 Cor. 7:14 (rv), 15; Jas. 2:15, male as distinct from female, Acts 1:16; 15:7, 13, but not 6:3.* * From Notes on Thessolonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 32.
Notes: (1) Associated words are adelphotes, primarily, “a brotherly relation,” and so, the community possessed of this relation, “a brotherhood,” 1 Pet. 2:17 (see 5:9, marg.).; philadelphos, (phileo, “to love,” and adelphos), “fond of one’s brethren,” 1 Pet. 3:8; “loving as brethren,” rv.; philadelphia, “brotherly love,” Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; “love of the brethren,” 1 Pet. 1:22 and 2 Pet. 1:7, rv.; pseudadelphos, “false brethren,” 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4.
(2) In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, the rv has “son,” for kjv, “brother.”
(3) In Acts 13:1, for suntrophos, see bring, B, Note (6).
**

 

[mark_a]

Yes but from the gospels you can’t derive this. This is only made clear in the protoevangelium. In the gospels, she is betrothed. So many assume that she would have normal relations with Joseph. I won’t blame them either for thinking that.

Try the link below for info about vows of abstinece from The Book of Numbers, chapter 30.

usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers30.htm

It explains how vows of abstinence made by married and unmarried folks were to be handled.

 

[jpy15026]

The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers! REAL LIVE BIOLOGICAL BROTHERS!

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon
80ἀδελφός adelphos /ad·el·fos/]. (346 occurrences)
1 a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.
2 having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman.
3 any fellow or man.
4 a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5 an associate in employment or office.
6 brethren in Christ

 

[Michael_G]

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon
80ἀδελφός adelphos /ad·el·fos/]. (346 occurrences)
1 a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.
2 having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman.
3 any fellow or man.
4 a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5 an associate in employment or office.
6 brethren in Christ

Yes this is absolutely correct, notice the quote is from a Protestant resource, also not most all Protestant lexicons give just about the same definition for brother in the greek, covering a wide range of possibilities.

Hence Protestants cannot prove that Mary had other children, they assume and presume, but those are not proofs…all

 

[Michael_G]

Enhanced Strongs Lexicon
80ἀδελφός adelphos /ad·el·fos/]. (346 occurrences)
1 a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.
2 having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman.
3 any fellow or man.
4 a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection.
5 an associate in employment or office.
6 brethren in Christ

Yes this is absolutely correct, notice the quote is from a Protestant resource, also note most all Protestant lexicons give just about the same definition for brother in the greek, covering a wide range of possibilities.

Hence Protestants cannot prove that Mary had other children, they assume and presume, but those are not proofs…all based on their biases and their beliefs thatCatholics never ever know what they are talking about…

 

[RobHom]

“clh”…Actually…in ancient Greek… “brother” is “adelfos o” . Source: kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon But then again, what do the Greeks themselves know…right? Your spelling of the word “cousin” in ancient Greek fails the test. Got another shot at it?

The thing that I find most interesting…is your pedantic and obsessive claims about the Bible…yet you can’t answer simple questions about it without obfuscating. But then again…thats the general course of it all when “you guys” show up.

As to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity…here is a direct link to the writings of the principal founders of the Reformation and their take on the issue. Oh, I realize that you will fall back into your “sola scriptura” fire-drill, and while at the same time attempting to rail at all the “traditions” of the Catholic Church…you “WORSHIP” a man made tradition called “sola scriptura”… But thats ok, because through it all…and with your immense intelligence and acumen…you know more than the very founders of your belief system. Here’s a direct link to what they had to say about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

But the real kicker is…you aren’t even using a “real Bible”. Not unless it stems directly from the Catholic Church. Otherwise, your bible is merely one of the politically or otherwise mutated versions of what was.

Perhaps you might be interested in reading a real “Bible”…here’s a free link where you can read the entire book as it is properly written and translated: drbo.org/ Oh, and it has all 73 books in it…so you won’t have to worry about your “condensed version” anymore.

And if you actually want to learn about what we Catholics actually believe…as opposed to the more than likely blatant lies, disinformation, or propaganda you have been fed…go here: usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm or here: catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Some additional information for your education: scripturecatholic.com/

Was the real “Bible” really originally written in Greek? Here’s someone who disagrees with you: v-a.com/bible/

There is no doubt about the significance of the material itself from an American cultural perspective, the US being predominantly a Judeo-Christian culture. However, the Christian theological establishment has decreed that Greek is the “original” language of the NEW TESTAMENT, despite the existence of voluminous proof that the Gospels were written in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke and the language of the Biblical lands at the time. My preliminary consideration of this project presents the obvious fact that of the thousands of poetic verses in the Bible, none rhyme in Greek or any other language and yet all rhyme in Aramaic. Surely to consider this coincidence is preposterous.

The above comes from this page: v-a.com/bible/aramaic.html

Did someone tell you the Bible was written in Greek? Or did you come to this conclusion after actually seeing and translating the original documents?

My Bible…which just happens to be a “Catholic Bible” was translated from the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. Note the plurality of the languages.

Now…a question for you: Do you honestly believe that possibly illiterate or semi-literate fishermen in Galilee could speak not only Hebrew, Aramaic…but Greek as well??

Oh, in the possible event that you find my “tone” not to your pleasure…just realize that I am responding to “your tone”.

 

[RobHom]

Yo, “clh”…Here’s one that will “wrinkle” your thought processes:

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp This writer, a Greek Orthodox Reverend (Priest) writes the article, and whats interesting in it is this:

Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original Language. Therefore, the translations should be used for, the spiritual guidance of the believers, but not for the formulation of dogmatical teaching of the Church. This is why it cannot be said that the translations are “the inspired word of God”. Only the original language is "the inspired word of God."

WOW!!! Thats a “bell-ringer”, huh? But he does say that the NT was written in Greek…

A little more from the same link:

The individual Christian is urged to read the Bible in his own language for his spiritual enrichment, but not to use the translation in arriving at personal conclusions. One should read the Bible against the background of the interpretation given it by the Church as a whole, not on one’s own interpretation. It is profitable, however, for one who studies the Bible to use short commentaries of the Church and to leave the dogmatic and systematic teaching to the Church, which is the authoritative and infallible body. Taking a Biblical verse out of context often is misleading and is the basic cause of the Christian Church being separated into many parts, each interpreting according to their own opinions and thoughts.

WOW!!! Golly jeepers!!! And he’s not even a "C"atholic!!

It is not the Bible itself that divides Christianity, but its interpretation based on personal premises. That is the weakness of the human element. This weakness of the human element is reflected in claims that the Holy Spirit has inspired the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own premise. This is where the fallacy lies - the claim that the Holy Spirit is the author of his own personal interpretation, a claim that all make. The fact that so many persons have claimed that the Holy Spirit has spoken to and chosen them personally, should be clear and unmistakable proof that the interpretation of Scriptures lies only in the authority of the Church as a whole, and not with individuals. It should be stressed that the Bible is written on the background of the life of the Church, which has kept the Christian Message, Sacred Tradition, both the words and deed of Jesus Christ, undefiled. The Church, not individuals, was and remains the infallible interpreter of the written word, the Holy Bible. The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew, and especially the New Testament Greek text. The fact that there are variations of the translations of the Bible indicates most clearly the need for a common edition of the Greek New Testament on which other translations will depend.

WOW, again!!!

Here’s some more WOW!!!

Tyndale’s translation especially that of the New Testament from the original Greek, marked the beginning of many other English translations from the original Greek, using Tyndale’s translation as a guide. Unfortunately, the original Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus in 1516, which was used by Tyndale for his English translation,** contained many mistakes. Still, Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible was a pioneer work and an independent effort. Much of his translation is used in the King James Version of 1611.**

Remember…the writer is a religious man of the cloth, but not a Catholic… SO, this leads me to the thought that your opinions are just that, nothing more… right? You should read the entire article…especially what is pointed out about the KJV…kind of makes it clear that its “unreliable”.

The quoted information came from this site:

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp

Copyright: © 1990-1996 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

 

[jean8]

Now someone said, Mary was bethrothed to Joseph, so naturally like any marriage she would no doubt consummate. Where in scripture does it indicate that she pledged to be a virgin?

Also what would be the point of her being bethrothed if she was to remain a virgin

I know this is an older post, but I’ll respond to it by scripture.
Mt.12:46-49 refer to brothers of Jesus. On the other hand, at the cross, Jesus gave the care of his mother to John. I find this a problem. Another point, the brothers of Jesus are not mentioned as being present at the crucifixion. I do not however, believe this is a salvation issue.
what do you think?
Cousins are not mentioned.

God bless,
jean

 

[mark_a]

Now someone said, Mary was bethrothed to Joseph, so naturally like any marriage she would no doubt consummate. Where in scripture does it indicate that she pledged to be a virgin?

From Numbers, ch 30
4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 6 But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. 7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. 9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it.

This shows that a vow of abstinence was certainly within the realm of possibility.

usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers30.htm

 

[jean8]

Now someone said, Mary was bethrothed to Joseph, so naturally like any marriage she would no doubt consummate. Where in scripture does it indicate that she pledged to be a virgin?

Also what would be the point of her being bethrothed if she was to remain a virgin

The Bible doesn’t mention Mary remaining a virgin, in fact it says she had other children. Mt.12:46-47
This teaching isn’t a salvation issue in my opinion.
The Bible is also silent on what happened to Mary at the end of her life. I’m sure the Lord took special care of her, aren’t you? ")

God bless,
jean8

 

[clh1217]

The Bible doesn’t mention Mary remaining a virgin, in fact it says she had other children. Mt.12:46-47
This teaching isn’t a salvation issue in my opinion.
The Bible is also silent on what happened to Mary at the end of her life. I’m sure the Lord took special care of her, aren’t you? ")

God bless,
jean8

You are absolutely correct. It most certainly is NOT a salvation issue at all.

However, I am afraid it is when it comes to Catholics seeing as the crux of salvation was dependant on her sinlessness.

 

[YADA]

The Bible doesn’t mention Mary remaining a virgin, in fact it says she had other children. Mt.12:46-47
This teaching isn’t a salvation issue in my opinion.
The Bible is also silent on what happened to Mary at the end of her life. I’m sure the Lord took special care of her, aren’t you? ")

God bless,
jean8

Actually the bible does not say that Mary had other children … the quote that names the supposed brother and sisters … goes like this …

"Is he JEsus] not the carpenter’s son? Are not his brothers … "
If these named persons are siblings … they are the children of Joseph … No named siblings are listed as being the children of Mary …

Taking this passage on its clear andliteral meaning also has Jesus being the son of Joseph …

The other passage has his “mother and brothers” asking to seak with him … pretty vague this one … when brother can refer to any male relative and even a male from the same village … Abraham and Lot being a perfect example …

And as others have pointed out - all of the protestant reformers also held to the perpetual virginity …

So you are left with your personal interpretation of scripture that is based upon the modernist view that grew out of the Enlightenment period … a relatively new idea in Christian history [being 200 years old in practice and thought] …

I am sorry but your posts lack historical support, biblical support [its really rather tortured IMHO] … and the insults that you throw out regarding Jesus vs the Church … Jesus founded the Church and promised to protect it from the very Gates of Hell!

 

[VociMike]

You are absolutely correct. It most certainly is NOT a salvation issue at all.

However, I am afraid it is when it comes to Catholics seeing as the crux of salvation was dependant on her sinlessness.

Where in the Catechism can I find this Catholic crux of salvation you speak of?

 

[jpy15026]

Snippet from One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church by Kenneth Whitehead:
Reading the Acts of the Apostles, we can clearly discern the coming to life of the Church. What Jesus left behind to carry on his works and his words was no abstract scheme, outline, plan, or book but rather an *organized *community of believers. As far as we know, Jesus himself wrote nothing down, except with his finger on the ground when the Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to him for judgment (cf. Jn 8:6).
It is one of the strangest paradoxes in history that many of his sincere followers have *imagined *that Jesus is chiefly to be encountered in a book. Even though the book in question, the New Testament, is an inspired one, and even though Jesus is to be encountered there, the New Testament is far from the only place where Jesus is to be encountered.
We should also bear in mind that not all of the New Testament was written by Jesus’ direct disciples; in some cases it was written by their disciples. What the New Testament contains, in other words, was handed on. What was then written down has been handed on further in the Church. In other words, Jesus committed his teaching, not merely to the pages of a book, but to living men who handed it on to others.
Even the great apostle Paul, chosen by Jesus to carry the faith to the gentiles, recipient and beneficiary of a special revelation from the risen Jesus—even St. Paul wrote that he had delivered what he also received (cf. 1Cor 15:3), meaning what he received from the living tradition of the *Church *already active when he joined Christ’s followers.
It is true that Jesus sent his Spirit to St. Paul and to the other New Testament writers in a special way in order to insure that they would deliver his message accurately. That is one of the things meant by “inspiration” in the New Testament. The New Testament books constitute an inspired record of what Jesus said and did on earth among us but this is primarily because they are the record of what the living Church that Jesus left behind continued to teach and preach about him after he ascended into heaven. The Church was already operating before the books of the New Testament were written.

 

[clh1217]

Where in the Catechism can I find this Catholic crux of salvation you speak of?

Mary helps in salvation

“She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the
saving work of her Son.”

Verification: (Pg. 332, #1172)

 

[LJN21]

Mary helps in salvation

“She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the
saving work of her Son.”

Verification: (Pg. 332, #1172)

She should get no credit for saying Yes to Gods will?

 

[VociMike]

Mary helps in salvation

“She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the
saving work of her Son.”

Verification: (Pg. 332, #1172)

Thank you for the citation. Here is the full paragraph:

1172 “In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be.”

So the paragraph is speaking about the liturgical year, not about salvation. And the language used is “linked with”, not “helps”. The apostles are also inseparably linked with the saving work of Christ (and they too are honored during the liturgical year). This is just a simple fact, nothing startling about it at all.

But even so, is there not a perfectly valid way that even you or I could be understood to “help” somebody’s salvation by preaching the gospel to them and taking part in (I don’t say causing) their conversion to Christ? If that person then said “God bless you! You helped me to find God! You helped me to get saved!” would that be an heretical statement?

I think you’re reading far, far too much into the words.

 

[clh1217]

She should get no created for saying Yes to Gods will?

oh please.

Do you actually think she was going to say no?

Do you not think she was created for a time and purpose such as this?

Do you really think that God needs to be co-erced to finish his absolute unchanging plans???