Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[adrift]

Yes he could have had brothers and sisters. You are taking things out of context, as you would tell me.

Please elaborate on how I am taking it out of context. I read scripture and I find that the use of brothers has many meanings. I look at the language and understand that there was no distinguishing between a realtive that was born to an aunt and uncle to one born of the same parents. How do I know that Lot was not Abraham’s brother as it is stated because it also tells us that he is the son of his brother. It does not use the term nephew because that was an unknown term. Just as the term cousin is. That is putting it into the context of the time.

Jesus’ family came to take charge of him, they were looking out for him because they thought Jesus had went over the edge as a religious fanatic. They were concerned about him. This passage don’t say who in the family it was, could have been his brothers, could have been some other relative (s) and could have been his friends.

You are correct in that it does not say exactly who they are but it doesn’t alter the fact that the way they treat Him makes Him younger than they are according to the context of the society rules of that time which is also demonstrated for the same reason in John 7 3-4.

You are assuming it was his brothers but it don’t say that

.

It is translated in various ways. His own family is one. The translation of the Greek that I have says

kai <2532> {AND} akousanteV <191> (5660) {HAVING HEARD [OF IT]} oi <3588> {THOSE} par <3844> {BELONGING TO} autou <846> {HIM} exhlqon <1831> (5627) {WENT OUT} krathsai <2902> (5658) {TO LAY HOLD OF} auton <846> {HIM;} elegon <3004> (5707) gar <1063> oti <3754> {FOR THEY SAID,} exesth <1839> (5627) {HE IS BESIDE HIMSELF.}

It still shows that Jesus was younger if they treated Him so.

 

[Erich]

Cyril’s, " The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem" Here from Cyril’s words alone, one can argue tht some of the early church fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early church father, penned "The Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers 2nd series, vol 12, the letters and sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15."
Saying that he not only considered the idea but also believed it to be true.

The Ecumenical council fo the church, “the 7 ecumenical conucils of the undivided church, the canons of the council in Trullo; A.D. 692 cannon 32.”
Clearly shows that as late as 695 A.D. was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling.

Cyril did not write anything entitled “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem.” Neither did Leo write anything entitled “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd series, vol 12, the letters and sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15.” It certainly appears to me that you lifted these paragraphs – without attribution, I might add – from jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc4-tradition.htm (a URL which clearly shows its bias and partiality).
…From Cyril’s words alone, one can argue that some of the early Church Fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true… …Leo the Great, another early Church Father, writer, pope and Doctor of the Church, penned these words, thereby manifesting that he not only had considered the idea but also believed it to be true…
… These words from one such council clearly show that, as late as A.D. 695, there was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling…
As an aside, if you’re going to invoke as authoritative one of the “seven ecumenical councils of the undivided church” you might at least pick one of the seven councils recognized by the West. The Council in Trullo is not one of them.

Ok lets make this simple. A sibling is a brother or sister; that is, any person who shares at least one of the same parents.
A blood relative that comes from the same set of parents.

Now Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so that knocks him out. The only person that leaves is Mary. Now Jesus was the son of Mary and not of Joseph. If Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, which there is no proof of, Joseph’s children would not be Jesus’ siblings. So in order for Jesus to have siblings they would have to have come from Mary.

And we have already seen that there is no Scriptural proof that Mary had other children. She certainly did not give birth to James the Brother of the Lord (who, as we have seen earlier, is the son of Alphaeus/Clopas and a different Mary).

You know I don’t put too much in tradition but if you chose to thats fine.

For someone who does not “put too much in tradition” and who’s only final authority is (supposed to be) Scripture you seem to be giving a lot of weight to the tradition of man which holds that “brothers of Jesus” = “children of Mary.” Just sayin’.

 

[mark_a]

Cyril did not write anything entitled “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem.” Neither did Leo write anything entitled “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd series, vol 12, the letters and sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15.” It certainly appears to me that you lifted these paragraphs – without attribution, I might add – from jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc4-tradition.htm (a URL which clearly shows its bias and partiality)

Nice catch!!

 

[TimothyH]

John’s own mother was standing next to the blessed Mother at the foot of the cross.

Point of clarity if you please.

John;'s mother was not at the foot of the cross with Mary. The mother of the sons of Zebedee was looking on from a distance.

There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:55-57)

I don’t think this diminishes your point though.

Much to the point of post 142 and other posts, the claim that Mary had other children is not supported when we consider the other Mary, the mother’s of the son’s of Zebedee, looking on from a distance. Many who hear the term “Brother’s of Jesus” assume that it means literal brother instead of “Brethren” and wrongly assume that one reference to Mary as the mother of Jesus is the same Mary who is the Mother James and Joseph.

Mary was at the foot of the cross but the other Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, Jesus’ supposed brothers, was “Looking on from a distance.”

-Tim-

 

[elvisman]

Point of clarity if you please.

John;'s mother was not at the foot of the cross with Mary. The mother of the sons of Zebedee was looking on from a distance.
There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.* (Matthew 27:55-57)*
I don’t think this diminishes your point though.

Much to the point of post 142 and other posts, the claim that Mary had other children is not supported when we consider the other Mary, the mother’s of the son’s of Zebedee, looking on from a distance. Many who hear the term “Brother’s of Jesus” assume that it means literal brother instead of “Brethren” and wrongly assume that one reference to Mary as the mother of Jesus is the same Mary who is the Mother James and Joseph.

Mary was at the foot of the cross but the other Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, Jesus’ supposed brothers, was “Looking on from a distance.”

-Tim-

To be clear - yes, from a distance. A minor point.
Suffice it to say, ALL of the assorted Mary’s were at the crucifixion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Before (the new covenant) Christ was born, it was believed in the Old Covenant that sins from their fathers werre handed down; Exodus 20: 5
2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God,** inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; **6
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. (See also Job 4:7-8, 2 Mc. 7:18, Tob. 3:3).

John 9:1-3 has Jesus healing a blind man after being asked if he was made blind due to his parents sin.

This goes to show how merciful God is to the blessed Virgin Mary in bestowing in her “Full of Grace”. Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever

John Paul Jones;7437180]There are no sins that pass through the umbilical, even with chemical dependencies for an infant that is only a physical condition, the child doesn’t inherit sin or is sinful. The only sin passed on is Original Sin, which isn’t an actual personal sin. Mary was the Immaculate Conception, still Mary even born without original sin had to preserve in grace (with the help of the Lord) and she did till end of her life on Earth.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello rev kevin; I have been reading along the post’s here and could not get a clear understanding from your posts, of when and where you get this new interpretation of Mary giving birth to other children?

Your interpretation of the New testament that Mary did not remain a virgin before, during and after giving birth to Jesus. Who in history supports your interpretation of the New Testament? How far back can you date this interpretation of yours? Is it your own new interpretation of scripture? Or is there anyone from Christian history supports your “new” interpretation of the New Testament? Can you help me out here? I would really like to learn when and where you get this interpretation of scripture? Thank you

rev kevin;7439729]You know I don’t put too much in tradition but if you chose to thats fine.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There may well have been a theory proposed at one of the Councils. But it definatly didn’t survive the Council, nor was it popular. It would have been immediatly rejected at heretical. And there is no written document dating to the 1,2,3rd centurys indicating this. Contrary is the general concensus that Mary remained consecrated to God. And is documented

Its really just good sense. Gods plan was Christ through Mary. And everything Adam and Eve failed at in disobediance, became corrected in Christ and Marys obediance.

And that theory does go back to the 1st-2nd century.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree with you, that Mary’s role in giving birth to Jesus resulted in the doctrine of “Theotokos” = God bearer. It was also argued that Mary bore other children, but these who argued thus were labeled “heretics” or recanted.

From then on Mary’s perpetual virginity is never questioned or contested again. So, Iam curious when did this Counciled labeled “heresy” of Mary giving birth to other children spring up again? and by whom? Then maybe the truth be exposed be it by a devil or does this new teaching come from God?

GaryTaylor;7458883]There may well have been a theory proposed at one of the Councils. But it definatly didn’t survive the Council, nor was it popular. It would have been immediatly rejected at heretical. And there is no written document dating to the 1,2,3rd centurys indicating this. Contrary is the general concensus that Mary remained consecrated to God. And is documented

Its really just good sense. Gods plan was Christ through Mary. And everything Adam and Eve failed at in disobediance, became corrected in Christ and Marys obediance.

And that theory does go back to the 1st-2nd century.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matter of Fact heres what Iranaeus-Bishop of Lyons said in 130-200. And the document is in fact at the Vatican.

Just as it was though a Virgin who disobeyed {Eve} that mankind was stricken and fell and died, so was it through the Virgin {Mary} who obeyed the Word of God, that mankind resusitated by life, received life, for the Lord.

Christ came to seek back the lost sheep, and it was mankind that was lost; and therefore He did not become some other formation, but He likewise, of Her that was decended from Adam{Mary} preserved the likeness of formation for Adam had necessarily to be restored in Christ, that mortality be absorbed in immortality.

Eve had necessarily to be restored in Mary, that a Virgin by becoming the AVOCATE OF VIRGINS should undo and destry VIRGINAL DISOBEDIENCE BY VIRGINAL OBEDIENCE!

Iranaeus was a link to the Apostle Paul, and here you clearly see the first two centurys in truth and teaching. And the link between Mary/Eve and Christ/Adam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with you, that Mary’s role in giving birth to Jesus resulted in the doctrine of “Theotokos” = God bearer. It was also argued that Mary bore other children, but these who argued thus were labeled “heretics” or recanted.

From then on Mary’s perpetual virginity is never questioned or contested again. So, Iam curious when did this Counciled labeled “heresy” of Mary giving birth to other children spring up again? and by whom? Then maybe the truth be exposed be it by a devil or does this new teaching come from God?

Really with Islam.

This here heretical philosphy in Christian worship came in the last 50-years though. The Protestant Baptist Churchs where singing Hymns in the USA in 1906 to Venerate Mary as Mankinds Intercessor. I have a copy of the hymn posted on another thread here. Its called… “Ye watchers and ye holy ones” John A Riley 1906. And is completely about Mary being higher that the Cherubim, more glorius than the Seraphim etc. Very Catholic sounding I might add. Though not recited in the CC.

Kevin, come on now, you remember this

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What I love about quotes from the Early Church Fathers is that they set down the path of the Apostolic Traditions from the prophetic writings coming to fulfillment in the New Testament Apostolic Letters. I was already convinced of Mary’s perpetual virginity when I learned early in life that Jesus is God incarnate from the protoevangelium of Genisis 3:15, the prophets propheicies of Mary and Jesus come to fulfillment of the Angel Gabriels “annunciation” to the blessed Virgin Mary.

It would be interesting to learn from others here? when and what convinced you that Mary remained a virgin all her life? As a testament to this thread.

p.s I thought St. Irenaeus was a disciple of John?

GaryTaylor;7458923]Matter of Fact heres what Iranaeus-Bishop of Lyons said in 130-200. And the document is in fact at the Vatican.

Just as it was though a Virgin who disobeyed {Eve} that mankind was stricken and fell and died, so was it through the Virgin {Mary} who obeyed the Word of God, that mankind resusitated by life, received life, for the Lord.

Christ came to seek back the lost sheep, and it was mankind that was lost; and therefore He did not become some other formation, but He likewise, of Her that was decended from Adam{Mary} preserved the likeness of formation for Adam had necessarily to be restored in Christ, that mortality be absorbed in immortality.

Eve had necessarily to be restored in Mary, that a Virgin by becoming the AVOCATE OF VIRGINS should undo and destry VIRGINAL DISOBEDIENCE BY VIRGINAL OBEDIENCE!

Iranaeus was a link to the Apostle Paul, and here you clearly see the first two centurys in truth and teaching. And the link between Mary/Eve and Christ/Adam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What I love about quotes from the Early Church Fathers is that they set down the path of the Apostolic Traditions from the prophetic writings coming to fulfillment in the New Testament Apostolic Letters. I was already convinced of Mary’s perpetual virginity when I learned early in life that Jesus is God incarnate from the protoevangelium of Genisis 3:15, the prophets propheicies of Mary and Jesus come to fulfillment of the Angel Gabriels “annunciation” to the blessed Virgin Mary.

It would be interesting to learn from others here? when and what convinced you that Mary remained a virgin all her life? As a testament to this thread.

Well, I accepted the Catholic Church teaching at Catholic Grammer School. But I always felt God was very close. I’ve witnessed Marys intercession since then also. So my faith in essence really didn’t need confirmation by history. It was pure faith since childhood. I have just become more convinced historically of the absolute truth. History does not indicate anything else.

Recently there has been so much chaos that its been a journey into History. And honestly “google” is seriously lacking. So its no wonder that going off track is perpetual.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

True Islam denies Mary’s perpetual virginity, althought they are not Christian. What I don’t understand is why a christian would side with Islam and deny Mar’ys perpetual virginity?

Why google? A short cut is to Just view the fruit (saints and martrys) of the Tree (Catholic Church) and not the fruit that has fallen away from the Tree.

Well, I accepted the Catholic Church teaching at Catholic Grammer School. But I always felt God was very close. I’ve witnessed Marys intercession since then also. So my faith in essence really didn’t need confirmation by history. It was pure faith since childhood. I have just become more convinced historically of the absolute truth. History does not indicate anything else.

Recently there has been so much chaos that its been a journey into History. And honestly “google” is seriously lacking. So its no wonder that going off track is perpetual.