perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, problematic. Jesus, making a point to His audience is hardly rejecting family. And the oldest surviving son would be responsible for Mary regardless.
I’m sorry but I respectfully disagree. If I have a brother who is a non-believer and I have a friend who is a believer, that friend is more brother to me than my blood. Jesus would not have given his mother over to a non-believer. I’m grateful to God that my only blood brother is also my brother in Christ.
Also – the “brothers” stated in the passage you reference could not have been blood relations, because a younger sibling would NEVER rebuke an older sibling – especially an eldest son – in public.
They apparently believed the Lord to be unhinged, mad, crazy… which I always found backing up the idea that Jesus was either a nut, fraud or Son of God. This is underscored by the fact that James did not believe until after the crucifixion and resurrection.
 
For those of you that believe in the PV of Mary, do you view Joseph as Mary’s actual husband, or no?
 
For those of you that believe in the PV of Mary, do you view Joseph as Mary’s actual husband, or no?
Many believe Mary to be the bride of the Holy Spirit and Joseph was not her actual “husband” as I am to my wife.

As always…I could be wrong. 😛
 
I read of parishes in Denmark changing the name of the church from St Mary, the Virgin to Our Lady as an explanation of post-Reformation piety to Mary, though it seems subtle.
 
I am also astonished by Calvin and Zwingli’s insistence on Mary’s perpetual virginity. How did that belief fall apart after the Reformation?
It’s been explained to me by more evangelical types that they simply do not hold the original reformers as any more infallible than they hold the pope to be. So - just because the original reformers held to the PV does not make it right. 🤷

Basically it comes down to this simple tenet - which the whole of protestantism is built upon. That is the rejection of ecclesial authority.

First came the rejection of the authority of the Church in Rome. This was then furthered and made de-facto dogma by the fact that the early reformers never came together and work out their theological differences and provide a united front. Thus all remained fractured…no ecclesial authority.

So since the ecclesial authority of Rome is rejected and the theology of the reformers is fractured - each rejecting the other(s)…there is nothing to prevent the rejection of the theology of any person or group - or portions there-of.

Peace
James
 
For those of you that believe in the PV of Mary, do you view Joseph as Mary’s actual husband, or no?
The churches who accept this doctrine include at least 75% of world-wide Christianity! 🙂 And ALL of Christianity until a couple hundred years ago! 🙂 🙂

But yes, Joseph was Mary’s legal spouse. St. Matthew’s concern with the genealogy of Jesus would have been irrelevant otherwise.
 
Off to Mass pretty soon! It’s the Eve of the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God (Theotokos)!

Thanks for the great conversation, all!
 
Actually that is explained in scripture. His family rejected what He was teaching until after the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus taught blatantly that only those who were doing the will of His Father were brother, sister, mother. He would not have given her over to James because James was not a believer at the time, and hence not one that Jesus considered brother even though related.
You would think that if James were Jesus’ blood brother that James might have had a clue about the identity of Jesus and had good reason to believe it. Do you think that Mary and Joseph kept everything they knew a secret? Why would they do that? The Bible says twice that “Mary kept these things and pondered them in her heart,” but this does not mean she never spoke of them, only that she always remembered them and contemplated them. It would make more sense for Jesus’ brethren to not believe in him if they were more distant relations than children of the same mother.

But let’s suppose James were the child of Mary and Joseph and an unbeliever. Would not believing in Jesus be sufficient reason to deny him custody of Mary? St. Paul says, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Would it be fitting for Christ to deny his brother the opportunity to care for his own widowed mother and make him be or appear to be “worse than an infidel?” This is the man who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. This would be the source of outrageous scandal. Christ’s decision would have been more understandable if James were not Mary’s own son.

Finally, it would be more appropriate if Christ did not have any brothers so as not to put his saying “who are my brethren?” too strongly to the test.
 
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother.
The key to Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
Roman Catholicism states that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. There is a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.
It is a misconception that Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].
Another argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?
Maybe because **they were grown adults **living with their own families and did not accompany Mary and Joseph to Egypt. Joseph was an older widower, remember? :yup:

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
The churches who accept this doctrine include at least 75% of world-wide Christianity! 🙂 And ALL of Christianity until a couple hundred years ago! 🙂 🙂

But yes, Joseph was Mary’s legal spouse. St. Matthew’s concern with the genealogy of Jesus would have been irrelevant otherwise.
I don’t really understand the need of the first bit, but as to the second; for those of you who do consider it (and indeed I’m glad you do, as that is the position I see in scripture) that Mary and Joseph were indeed married, would it not have been legally, morally, and customarily expected that if physically able they consummate the marriage?
 
But let’s suppose James were the child of Mary and Joseph and an unbeliever. Would not believing in Jesus be sufficient reason to deny him custody of Mary?
So is Christ giving John custody of Mary or is Christ stating that she is the Mother of us all? OR is it both?
St. Paul says, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Would it be fitting for Christ to deny his brother the opportunity to care for his own widowed mother and make him be or appear to be “worse than an infidel?” This is the man who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. This would be the source of outrageous scandal. Christ’s decision would have been more understandable if James were not Mary’s own son.
Peter denied Christ three times and yet becomes the leader of the Roman Church. Is that a scandal? I believe it shows that men can change and change for the better.

Not saying I disagree or agree…just making conversation is all. 👍
 
You would think that if James were Jesus’ blood brother that James might have had a clue about the identity of Jesus and had good reason to believe it. Do you think that Mary and Joseph kept everything they knew a secret? Why would they do that? The Bible says twice that “Mary kept these things and pondered them in her heart,” but this does not mean she never spoke of them, only that she always remembered them and contemplated them. It would make more sense for Jesus’ brethren to not believe in him if they were more distant relations than children of the same mother.
Mary and Joseph were directly interacted with and had first hand knowledge from angels and the Spirit. If Jesus had younger brothers and sisters, there’s no guarantee that they would believe their brother to be anything special. In fact, it may have made the situation worse to be directly related. I know siblings… identical twins in fact that would like to disown one another, each thinking the other perpetually wrong.
But let’s suppose James were the child of Mary and Joseph and an unbeliever. Would not believing in Jesus be sufficient reason to deny him custody of Mary? St. Paul says, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Would it be fitting for Christ to deny his brother the opportunity to care for his own widowed mother and make him be or appear to be “worse than an infidel?” This is the man who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. This would be the source of outrageous scandal. Christ’s decision would have been more understandable if James were not Mary’s own son.
Again, I respectfully disagree; if Jesus has given her over to a non-believer He would have been guilty of not providing for His own. James didn’t believe until after the crucifixion and resurrection. Also, it doesn’t appear that James was at the crucifixion.
Finally, it would be more appropriate if Christ did not have any brothers so as not to put his saying “who are my brethren?” too strongly to the test.
I respect the perspective, but with the words used I feel He did just that.
 
The key to Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
I believe a stubbling block for some is when it is stated that…[here is Peter, Paul…etc and the brothers of our Lord] not the exact words but you get what I am stating. If all were brethen then why not just call Peter, Paul, John…etc brethen and not seperate the two?
It is a misconception that Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.
No disagreement here
These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].
nor here
Maybe because **they were grown adults **living with their own families and did not accompany Mary and Joseph to Egypt. Joseph was an older widower, remember? :yup:
Here is where we may differ a bit. We do not know for sure exactly how old Joseph was at the time. One would assume he was older but by how much…it is not known.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Always enjoy posting with you 👍
 
I don’t really understand the need of the first bit, but as to the second; for those of you who do consider it (and indeed I’m glad you do, as that is the position I see in scripture) that Mary and Joseph were indeed married, would it not have been legally, morally, and customarily expected that if physically able they consummate the marriage?
Legally? After a wedding ceremony but before the wedding night, EVERY couple is legally married.

Morally? No, why would it be immoral to abstain from sex?

Customarily Expected? Sure.
 
I don’t really understand the need of the first bit, but as to the second; for those of you who do consider it (and indeed I’m glad you do, as that is the position I see in scripture) that Mary and Joseph were indeed married, would it not have been legally, morally, and customarily expected that if physically able they consummate the marriage?
Under normal circumstances - yes…but we do not have normal circumstances here…

Place yourself in Joseph’s sandals…

Consider carefully what he knew and when he knew it.
Consider how that would effect how he viewed Mary - who she was and what her relation was to God - and consequently his relationship in all of this.

It is my firm belief that if one does this, one will come to the conclusion that Joseph, a righteous man would not have sexual relations with Mary - viewing here as consecrated to God.

To me all of quibbling over - giving Mary to John - or whether the translations should be brtohers/cousins/kinsmen or whatever - - is secondary.

Bottom line is that Joseph would not believe it right to have relations with Mary…

Peace
James
 
So is Christ giving John custody of Mary or is Christ stating that she is the Mother of us all? OR is it both?
Why not both? She can be a spiritual mother to us all, but as a widow, she still needed somewhere to live and provide for her physical well-being.
Peter denied Christ three times and yet becomes the leader of the Roman Church. Is that a scandal? I believe it shows that men can change and change for the better.
Not saying I disagree or agree…just making conversation is all. 👍
In Peter’s case, he repented and Jesus restored him three times (“feed my…”). In James’ case, Mary remained with John her entire life and this would always have been a reminder of James’ impiety, which would have had a great potential for scandal, especially between different communities under John and under James.

There is also a well-founded hypothesis which states that James the Lord’s Brother is the same as James, the Son of Alphaeus, which would make him one of the Twelve.
 
Why not both? She can be a spiritual mother to us all, but as a widow, she still needed somewhere to live and provide for her physical well-being.
In Peter’s case, he repented and Jesus restored him three times (“feed my…”). In James’ case, Mary remained with John her entire life and this would always have been a reminder of James’ impiety, which would have had a great potential for scandal, especially between different communities under John and under James.
There is also a well-founded hypothesis which states that James the Lord’s Brother is the same as James, the Son of Alphaeus, which would make him one of the Twelve.
Right. James, the leader of the Church of Jerusalem, is a tricky one to pin down as to which James exactly he was. So many different opinions out there on which James is which.

🤷
 
I believe a stubbling block for some is when it is stated that…[here is Peter, Paul…etc and the brothers of our Lord] not the exact words but you get what I am stating. If all were brethen then why not just call Peter, Paul, John…etc brethen and not seperate the two?
I’m not following you here…could you clarify your question? The passage reads:

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
Here is where we may differ a bit. We do not know for sure exactly how old Joseph was at the time. One would assume he was older but by how much…it is not known.
Correct. But it FITS both Tradition and logic. Therefore, it is the most probable explanation of **all **the known facts, IMO.
 
I’m not following you here…could you clarify your question? The passage reads:

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

Correct. But it FITS both Tradition and logic. Therefore, it is the most probable explanation of **all **the known facts, IMO.
About to eat dinner at the moment but i well address as soon as I can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top