Need help with perpetual Virgin?

[po18guy]

I originally piece mealed this and it was way too confusing. In another thread Randy Carson dealt very nicely with this.

There is a strong biblical case but it suggests not that Mary had other children but that Jesus had many male relatives who were not the sons of Mary but called brothers of Jesus.

Respectfully,
Maria

Great job, Maria! Now, we can pray that the heart which posted this unintentional assault on the mother of our Lord might take just a few minutes to reflect on the REASON that is in your posts.

Knowing also that those from your same town are called “Brother” or “Sister” even today in the middle east. It is cultural as much as linguistic. This is the danger of “sola scriptura”, which appeals to individual misunderstanding, and has torn scripture apart from the God-given Church authority to interpret it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I really like the typology of Mary and the Ark

Here is an article from CA *This Rock *that does a great job explaining some of it.

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant by Steve Ray

Among other things it is significant to note that when a man accidently fell against the Ark of the Covenant, God struck him dead.

The Ark carried the 10 commandments, the word of God
Mary carried the Word of God

Great article. Take the time to look up scripture references in your bible. It really is worth it!

God Bless,
Maria

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, and Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and** brother of James, and Joses, and Judas**, and Simon?

We see Jude and James are in the “brother” list: and also Jude call James his brother …so are they really just cousins of cousins or is the actual context that the are siblings?

you may argue with a point or two , but the number of brother references in mother/brother context builds a strong Biblical case that Mary did have other children after the Virgin Birth of Jesus

No…I’ll argue with all of them, and I’ll do so quite convincingly.

Let’s examine who James, Joses, Jude and Simon were, okay?

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does not my mother’s sons = brothers?

Scripture never refers to anyone as a “son of Mary”, does it?

Hmmm…why do you suppose that it? Maybe because she never had any other children? Maybe because these “brothers” were actually “kinsmen”?

or is your point Psalm 69 does not refer to Jesus?

The Psalm may refer to Jesus without proving uterine brothers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Whether or not they, and the Roman Catholic Church, are correct will ultimately be decided when we encounter the Lord and he reveals to us in heaven

You see my friend it is like this, it really doesn’t matter to me.
And that is one of the strengths of Protestantism is that we do have some freedom in the non-essentials of the Faith (See Romans 14)

However, because of the RCC doctrine of Papal or Church infallibility, you have to defend EVERY doctrine like your Church depends on it. Because it does.

If I’m wrong on this , no big thing; if the RCC is wrong on this……………

You’re kidding, right?

If the Catholic Church is right on this, then you have some serious soul-searching to do.

I mean, how many more things which you currently deny simply because they are “too Catholic” would come into question?

No…it’s better that you fight tooth and nail to deny every Catholic doctrine you can, because if you ever admit that even one of them is true…well, that starts you down a slippery slope, doesn’t it?

 

[po18guy]

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Whether or not they, and the Roman Catholic Church, are correct will ultimately be decided when we encounter the Lord and he reveals to us in heaven

You see my friend it is like this, it really doesn’t matter to me.
And that is one of the strengths of Protestantism is that we do have some freedom in the non-essentials of the Faith (See Romans 14)

However, because of the RCC doctrine of Papal or Church infallibility, you have to defend EVERY doctrine like your Church depends on it. Because it does.

If I’m wrong on this , no big thing; if the RCC is wrong on this……………

Romans 14
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God…
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves

On the essentials , unity,
On the non-esstialials, liberty,
And in all things, charity.
St. Augustine

Most important: The Church contains the revealed truth of God. By God’s grace and inspiration, the Church produced the bible which you read. The following is offered in all charity to a brother in Christ: DO NOT become an unknowing dupe of the evil one, who uses well-intentioned humans to do his work. The evil one is too cowardly to attack Mary. He always uses humans to do that work. Careful! Truth is not flexible.

 

[RedBert]

/ the Church produced the bible which you read. …Careful! Truth is not flexible.

Well I don’t belive thats true…so oh well,

and no, i’m not kidding

 

[CWBetts]

Most important: The Church contains the revealed truth of God. By God’s grace and inspiration, the Church produced the bible which you read. The following is offered in all charity to a brother in Christ: DO NOT become an unknowing dupe of the evil one, who uses well-intentioned humans to do his work. The evil one is too cowardly to attack Mary. He always uses humans to do that work. Careful! Truth is not flexible.

You must remember, according to Fundamentalists, the Catholic Church has done nothing worthy of praise.

 

[po18guy]

Well I don’t belive thats true…so oh well,

and no, i’m not kidding

License.

 

[po18guy]

You must remember, according to Fundamentalists, the Catholic Church has done nothing worthy of praise.

Once you’ve made good your getaway with the bible, anything goes! Freedom! Licentiousness! Private interpretation! Full speed ahead! (Roll AC/DC) “We’re on the highway to…”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I don’t belive thats true…so oh well,

and no, i’m not kidding

All of the books of the New Testament were written by believers who were members of the Church that began referring to itself as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century.

So, yeah, the Holy Spirit used the Church, the Catholic Church, to author the New Testament which you hold so dear.

 

[CWBetts]

Once you’ve made good your getaway with the bible, anything goes! Freedom! Licentiousness! Private interpretation! Full speed ahead! (Roll AC/DC) “We’re on the highway to…”

Unfortunately for them they somehow lost part of the Bible though…I guess they weren’t paying attention

 

[RedBert]

All of the books of the New Testament were written by believers who were members of the Church that began referring to itself as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century.

yea yea, catholic mean universal , so what.

We profess the Nicene Creed also.

I see the Fundies having more in common with the church as described in the the books of Acts, then the RCC.

In the Acts they are called followers of “the Way”

If there was a churche called " followers of the Way" would that make them the true church?

And Josephus talks of the " tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

If there was a church called the Christian Church , would that be the true church ?

Oh wait …there is … Isn’t that what you call Protestants?

You may not realize this ,** but Protestants DO think there is a connection between the early church and themselves. And they see themselves as truer representative of that than the RCC is.**
And that where and why we disagree.

 

[CWBetts]

yea yea, catholic mean universal , so what.

We profess the Nicene Creed also.

I see the Fundies having more in common with the church as described in the the books of Acts, then the RCC.

In the Acts they are called followers of “the Way”

If there was a churche called " followers of the Way" would that make them the true church?

And Josephus talks of the " tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

If there was a church called the Christian Church , would that be the true church ?

Oh wait …there is … Isn’t that what you call Protestants?

You may not realize this ,** but Protestants DO think there is a connection between the early church and themselves. And they see themselves as truer representative of that than the RCC is.**
And that where and why we disagree.

You obviously have never read any of the early fathers. If you did, you’d be Catholic.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBert
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Whether or not they, and the Roman Catholic Church, are correct will ultimately be decided when we encounter the Lord and he reveals to us in heaven

You see my friend it is like this, it really doesn’t matter to me.
And that is one of the strengths of Protestantism is that we do have some freedom in the non-essentials of the Faith (See Romans 14)

However, because of the RCC doctrine of Papal or Church infallibility, you have to defend EVERY doctrine like your Church depends on it. Because it does.

If I’m wrong on this , no big thing; if the RCC is wrong on this……………

REPLY: Allow me to quote you. You say in your second paragraph:

  "You see my friend it is like this, it really doesn’t matter to me. 
   And that is one of the strengths of Protestantism is that we do have some
   freedom in the non-essentials of the Faith (See Romans 14)"

Freedom in the non-essentials you say. Tell me just what is a non-essential? Protestants can’t even agree on what is essential and what isn’t. That is why you have so many thousands of denominations all claiming to preach the truth yet contradicting themselves. And let’s look at an “essential”/ “non-essential” shall we? Let’s look at Baptism. Oh, I know, some prots think Baptism is essential, but others don’t. That is why I termed it an "essential/ non-essential. Some prots say it is a sacrament other prots say it is just an ordinance. Some say it is necessary for salvation other prots say no it isn’t. Some prots say it is so necessary that prots children are to be baptized. Other prots say infant baptism is not necessary. So depending on which side of the protestant fence you are baptism is either an essential or a non-essential. So it appears to me that not only do you have freedom in the non-essentials you also have freedom in the essentials too. So tell me now, if you guys can’t agree on what is or is not an essential how can you correctly form doctrine??? And what does this say aboout sola scriptura???

 

[inkaneer]

We profess the Nicene Creed also.

I see the Fundies having more in common with the church as described in the the books of Acts, then the RCC.
In the Acts they are called followers of “the Way”
If there was a churche called " followers of the Way" would that make them the true church?
And Josephus talks of the " tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
If there was a church called the Christian Church , would that be the true church ?
Oh wait …there is … Isn’t that what you call Protestants?

You may not realize this but Protestants DO think there is a connection between the early church and themselves. And they see themselves as truer representative of that than the RCC is
And that where and why we disagree.

REPLY: You wrote:

 " I see the Fundies having more in common with the church as described in the the 
   books of Acts, then the RCC. "

Well I disagree. The early church had a heirarchy composed of bishops [episcopoi] priests pesbuteros] and deacons [diakoni]. DOES YOURS? In Acts 15 the church in Antioch had an issue it could not deal with and sought help from the heirarchy in Jerusalem. Scripture tells us there was much debate over the issue until Peter stood up and all shut up. WHY??? Because the boss the shepherd of the church [James 21:15-17] was speaking, that’s why. After Peter spoke there was no more debate. The issue was settled. All that needed to be done was to word the response to Antioch which James does. AND NOTICE THIS!!! The Apostles in Jerusalem did not refer to scripture. Instead they claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit when they said in Acts 15:28:

" For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." [Acts 15:28]

Notice that if they followed scripture they would have imposed exactly what the Judiacizers wanted. Only goes to show that the early church was Catholic for they too had no use for sola scriptura. HOW ABOUT YOURS??? The incident in Antioch occurred sometime before 50 AD. But another incident occurred later in 80 AD. This time in Corinth and again the church in Corinth could not resolve the issue and again they went to a higher authority. Who did they go to? John the Apostle was still alive and living at Ephesus. He was probably the only Apostle still alive. Did they go to John to resolve their problem? No, they went to Clement. CLEMENT??? CLEMENT WHO??? Clement, bishop of Rome. Solemn evidence that already the early church recognized the primacy of Peter was past down to the bishop of Rome. There are a lot of other examples but suffice to say that fundies have nothing in common with the early church.

Now that was a bad error on your part but then you wrote this:

**"You may not realize this ,** but Protestants DO think there is a connection
  between the early church and themselves."**

REPLY: Yeah, and that connection is 1500 years of Catholicism!!!**

 

[MariaG]

Great job, Maria! Now, we can pray that the heart which posted this unintentional assault on the mother of our Lord might take just a few minutes to reflect on the REASON that is in your posts.

Knowing also that those from your same town are called “Brother” or “Sister” even today in the middle east. It is cultural as much as linguistic. This is the danger of “sola scriptura”, which appeals to individual misunderstanding, and has torn scripture apart from the God-given Church authority to interpret it.

Not me, Randy! And I see he has made his way over here on his own:thumbsup:

I meant to PM him to let him know I had quoted him but time got away from me so I am glad he found his way here on his own.

 

[MariaG]

yea yea, catholic mean universal , so what.

We profess the Nicene Creed also.

I see the Fundies having more in common with the church as described in the the books of Acts, then the RCC.

In the Acts they are called followers of “the Way”

If there was a churche called " followers of the Way" would that make them the true church?

And Josephus talks of the " tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

If there was a church called the Christian Church , would that be the true church ?

Oh wait …there is … Isn’t that what you call Protestants?

You may not realize this ,** but Protestants DO think there is a connection between the early church and themselves. And they see themselves as truer representative of that than the RCC is.**
And that where and why we disagree.

Any response to the rebuttal to the scripture that you posted? You say that scripture makes a strong case and yet when there was a reasoned rebuttal, you have no response? Try to poke the holes in it? Say that maybe you were wrong?

You had a very nice post with lots of scripture and I, thanks to Randy, and Randy himself responded in kind.

It would be nice to keep going in that direction

 

[inkaneer]

Protestants claiming Mary had other children do not rest their case on MT 1:25. Instead they always refer to the scripture verses that speak of Jesus’ brothers, brethren or sisters. They insist on a strict interpretation of the Greek word ‘adelphos’ as meaning a sibling brother or one born of the same mother. The question then to be answered is whether this strict interpretation reasonable. Another poster pointed out that Paul called the Apostle James the brother of the Lord [Ga 1:19 ]. There the word ‘adelphos’ is used in the Greek and translated as brother. But is James really a sibling of Jesus? Well we know that he isn’t for of the two apostles named James one was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus. So James cannot be a sibling of Jesus. SO how is he called a brother? Is scripture wrong? No, Alphaeus is also known as Clopas and he is a brother of Joseph. So James is really the cousin of Jesus. Close relatives were referred to as brothers. But there is another example and this one comes directly from Jesus own lips. In Luke 22:31-32 we read Jesus as saying to Simon Peter:

“31 ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’” [Luke 22:31-32]

The word brethren refers to the other Apostles. It also is the Greek word ‘adelphos’. Now if adelphos meant a sibling brother then all the Apostles have to be born of Simon’s mother. But we know that only Andrew was his actual sibling brother. So did Jesus lie when he called the Apostles Peter’s brothers? Maybe just a little white lie? Or is the Catholic position that ‘adelphos’ should not be interpreted in a strict manner indeed correct?

One more thing about the passage in Luke 22:31-32. Notice there are four uses of the pronoun ‘you’. Two occur in verse 31 and two occur in verse 32. The two in verse 31 are plural. Satan doesn’t demand just Peter, he wants all of the Apostles. But Jesus only prays for Peter. The ‘you’ in verse 32 is not the plural “humas” but the singular “sou”. He then tells Peter it is his job to strengthen the other Apostles. Why only pray for Peter? True, It was Peter who denied Jesus three times but the other apostles all ran and hid when Jesus was arrested. None followed Jesus when the political authority exerted its muscle. Maybe an exception could be made for John since he was the only Apostle present at the crucifixion. So why doesn’t Jesus make John an exception? Why does Peter have to strengthen him?

 

[po18guy]

All of the books of the New Testament were written by believers who were members of the Church that began referring to itself as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century.

So, yeah, the Holy Spirit used the Church, the Catholic Church, to author the New Testament which you hold so dear.

Not only that, but the “Apostolic Tradition” is responsible for the entire Gospel of Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, since “Luke” witnessed none of it. Acts was written probably in the year 65*, just before Saints Peter and Paul were martyred, and so relies almost 100% on the oral teaching tradition. In fact, the third Gospel is named “Luke” only because of the Tradition that teaches us so. Luke and Acts is proof that the Holy Spirit reminded the Apostles and their successors of all that Jesus taught. Thank the Lord for Tradition!

• Inside the Bible ®1998 Ignatius Press; Fr. (now Bishop) Kenneth Baker, S.J.