You might find these articles on the subject to be of interest:I was brousing the Catholic Answers Lybrary and came across an article of Marys Perpetual Virginity among the Early Church. Is Marys PV mearly a part of Catholic Sacred Tradition or is there a Scriptural foundation for this Dogma?
I see your point but, one could also say that Mary for some reason did not or could not have further children dispite latter attempts. I myself know of Catholic Couples that are rather late in marriage and only have one child. I would not think that that would mean that after their first child they refused to touch eachother.In John’s Gospel ch 19 Jesus, on the cross, gives his mother over to the custody of John.“Behold your mother”.
If Mary had other children then it would have been their duty to take her in.
BTW to say is it ‘merely Tradition’ seems to imply that Tradition is not as important as Scripture. Both are equally binding and equally Inspired.
I think this is where you have to step back and ask, “Are we dealing with an ordinary situation?”I see your point but, one could also say that Mary for some reason did not or could not have further children dispite latter attempts. I myself know of Catholic Couples that are rather late in marriage and only have one child. I would not think that that would mean that after their first child they refused to touch eachother.
True in a hypothetical sense, but every person who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity points to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” in the bible as their scriptural proof. And those brothers, in particular, would never, ever have let their mother go off to live in the house of an unrelated man. It would have been inconceivable. And yet scripture says that she lived the rest of her life in John’s house.I see your point but, one could also say that Mary for some reason did not or could not have further children dispite latter attempts. I myself know of Catholic Couples that are rather late in marriage and only have one child. I would not think that that would mean that after their first child they refused to touch eachother.
The perpetual virginity is Scriptural, if you read Luke chapter 1, in its’ proper context.I was brousing the Catholic Answers Lybrary and came across an article of Marys Perpetual Virginity among the Early Church. Is Marys PV mearly a part of Catholic Sacred Tradition or is there a Scriptural foundation for this Dogma?
You would be troubled if an angel of God came to visit wouldn’t you?Luke 1,26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Here are the eight, you decide which should have been assumed, which would be noteworthy, and which are truly remarkable.Luke 1,31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
I absolutely agree, in fact Scripturally speaking, if you add up all of the brothers and sisters mentioned in Scripture it is over 200. Scripture also says Mary has other children, just not necessarily from her womb.I think that a review of the various Scriptural references would reasonably lead most people to conclude that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
So, everyone who keeps the commandments of God is “her seed” (child).Apocalypse 12:17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
True again, however Jesus and His friends usually spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not Greek. In ancient Aramaic the word is “AHah” there are about 30 different spellings of it. It means basically kinsman. It could mean brother; it could mean cousin, so I agree Scripture is not definitive. Had you described John, the Baptist, in relation to Jesus you would have called John the “AHah” (cousin in this case) of Jesus. In fact the same word is used inAlso, while there was a definitive word for “cousin” in Greek, it apparently was the custom at the time to sometimes refer to cousins as brothers and sisters.
We know from other parts of Scripture that Abram was the uncle and Lot was the nephew, but it is translated as “brother”, or kinsman.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.
I don’t think this matters because the Scriptures were written in Greek, so it is the Greek rendering of the term that is inspired by God, not the Aramaic or Hebrew which was most probably spoken by Christ at the time.True again, however Jesus and His friends usually spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not Greek. In ancient Aramaic the word is “AHah” there are about 30 different spellings of it. It means basically kinsman. It could mean brother; it could mean cousin, so I agree Scripture is not definitive.
‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani is Aramaic. The original Matthew Gospel was written in Aramaic by the Apostle Matthew. The original manuscript was destroyed by the pagans, when the Roman Empire rewarded anyone who destroyed any Christian manuscript. The only copies we have are Greek translation of the Aramiac version of the Gospel of Matthew.I don’t think this matters because the Scriptures were written in Greek, so it is the Greek rendering of the term that is inspired by God, not the Aramaic or Hebrew which was most probably spoken by Christ at the time.
Manny, please read my posts a bit closer. I never claimed that Christ only spoke Greek. That would be an absurd claim. My point was that I am told that Greek has both a word for cousin and a word for sibling. Tom responded that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic rather than Greek. I said that this really did not matter if you are trying to determine what the Scriptures mean because the Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, so the Greek rendering would be the inspired text. It is possible that some of the New Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, but most were certainly written in Greek so the Greek meaning of the word is what is paramount.Your claim that Christ only spoke Greek is incorrect. I were you I would study Scripture and how it came into being.
I would suggest you take a look on this text concerning the Aramaic language. You say it did not matter. There are insistence that the Gospel writters, and even the Epistles had Aramaic context.Manny, please read my posts a bit closer. I never claimed that Christ only spoke Greek. That would be an absurd claim. My point was that I am told that Greek has both a word for cousin and a word for sibling. Tom responded that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic rather than Greek. I said that this really did not matter if you are trying to determine what the Scriptures mean because the Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, so the Greek rendering would be the inspired text. It is possible that some of the New Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, but most were certainly written in Greek so the Greek meaning of the word is what is paramount.
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” 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 strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
meaning of the word is what is paramount.You can try to run with that but without the original Greek texts it won’t hold water worth much.Manny, please read my posts a bit closer. I never claimed that Christ only spoke Greek. That would be an absurd claim. My point was that I am told that Greek has both a word for cousin and a word for sibling. Tom responded that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic rather than Greek. I said that this really did not matter if you are trying to determine what the Scriptures mean because the Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, so the Greek rendering would be the inspired text. It is possible that some of the New Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, but most were certainly written in Greek so the Greek
I’m afraid that I don’t follow you. Are you saying that the Greek texts were not inspired? How can that be the case?You can try to run with that but without the original Greek texts it won’t hold water worth much.