perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Kliska]

Why does tradition have Mary remaining with John - in his home - if James finally came to the faith - would Mary not have then returned to her own child’s home?

Jesus had already given her over to John, who serves in several places (such as Revelation) as representing the church.

How, when and where did James have this epiphany of faith - and so completely adn fast that he rose to the See of Jerusalem and not one [the one named James perhaps ] the other apostles who were followers of Christ frome the beginning …

That’s exactly the point; James converted after the crucifixion and resurrection and experiencing the risen Christ. He was placed in charge, if I may offer my opinion, directly because he was the Lord’s brother. In that culture and place, the closest male relative would be expected to step up and lead.

 

[Lochias]

Jesus had already given her over to John, who serves in several places (such as Revelation) as representing the church.

And that doesn’t strike you as highly significant…why, exactly?

That’s exactly the point; James converted after the crucifixion and resurrection and experiencing the risen Christ. He was placed in charge, if I may offer my opinion, directly because he was the Lord’s brother. In that culture and place, the closest male relative would be expected to step up and lead.

So Jewish cultural norms only follow through if they fit with the self-made paradigm you wish to view Scripture through?

Nope, sorry. I like you, I really do… I think you’re intelligent, insightful, and generally very nice. That’s why I’m astounded that you’d ignore 2000+ years of verifiable information on this topic in the way that you are. Just sayin’.

 

[YADA]

Jesus had already given her over to John, who serves in several places (such as Revelation) as representing the church.

That’s exactly the point; James converted after the crucifixion and resurrection and experiencing the risen Christ. He was placed in charge, if I may offer my opinion, directly because he was the Lord’s brother. In that culture and place, the closest male relative would be expected to step up and lead.

Yes - this is all conjecture on your part … where is the record … this is merely your opinion … well - I have studied the scriptures and they do not indicate what you are implying … you are taking severe liberties to force your position on the scriptures

 

[batman1973]

Yes - this is all conjecture on your part … where is the record … this is merely your opinion … well - I have studied the scriptures and they do not indicate what you are implying … you are taking severe liberties to force your position on the scriptures

May I humbly suggest a re-read then? I’ve studied the scriptures several times, and I agree with Kliska.

 

[Kliska]

And that doesn’t strike you as highly significant…why, exactly?

It is highly significant, that’s what I mean. John was picked for a multitude of reasons; IMO, Jesus’ own siblings denied Him and called Him crazy, John represents the church, and James was not at the crucifixion.

So Jewish cultural norms only follow through if they fit with the self-made paradigm you wish to view Scripture through?

No, I find Jewish cultural norms throughout scripture.including the NT.

Nope, sorry. I like you, I really do… I think you’re intelligent, insightful, and generally very nice. That’s why I’m astounded that you’d ignore 2000+ years of verifiable information on this topic in the way that you are. Just sayin’.

Thank you for your kind words, you’re pretty nice yourself. I’m not ignoring it so much, as trying to dig into the closest written source we have, scripture, and compare opinion, yes the ECF’s, to that. I respect the teaching and I understand where people get it from, I just don’t agree that it is communicated in scripture. I said to Randy upthread that Tradition is the main evidence that backs up the teaching, but stubborn Sola Scriptura person that I am, I feel that this particular tradition contradicts scripture. Looking at it through logic (I also see the logic on the other side) I can connect several dots if Jesus had siblings that aren’t connected for me if He didn’t.

 

[stewstew03]

May I humbly suggest a re-read then? I’ve studied the scriptures several times, and I agree with Kliska.

Are you familiar with Pope Benedict XVI who also studies scripture? Very smart guy - probably smarter than you, me and Kliska combined. I agree with him on this matter.

 

[pocohombre]

Posted previously -

SUMMARY OF THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENT SO FAR

1. Protestant translations of the Bible say that Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters”.
2. I am not comfortable with or disagree with the Catholic position because this is not what I grew up with; therefore, I refuse to believe it.

Statement 2. is an assumption that in some cases, is totally untrue. I was born and raised Catholic, including 12 years of Catholic school. I did grow up being taught PV. What we are taught growing up does not make something automatically true or false.

Luke 2:7 (DRA)
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Notice the 6th word in the Douay Rheims version and many other versions. It is firstborn. Why would the distinction of firstborn be made if there were no subsequent children born? Wouldn’t it just say her son? or her only son? and yet, it says her firstborn son. Hmmmm. It just makes me wonder………

Marilyn

Thanks. read psalm 69 ?

 

[YADA]

May I humbly suggest a re-read then? I’ve studied the scriptures several times, and I agree with Kliska.

So - is your position one where numbers of agreement count? If so - i might suggest that there are more Christians - Protestant and catholic that believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary then do not.

I am glad that you have studied the scriptures - several times … May I ask what your credentials are - in relationship to biblical scholarship? Your degrees? … You share yours - I’ll share mine …

Why do you - humbly or not - believe that your biblical scholarship and ability to interpret those biblical passages in so much better then mine? …

Or any one of a host of biblical scholars throughout the history of Christendom? For example: St Clement, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Benedict, St. Francis, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Fulton Sheen, Marcos Grodi, Scott Hahn, Allen Hunt, Clifford Rogers, Jim Tonkowich, John Paul II? Some very close to the original apostles, some of the greatest Christian minds, the Reformers and some Protestant to Catholic theologians and pastors? …

Or this gentleman who holds a PhD chnetwork.org/2012/02/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/

 

[pocohombre]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that those are not applicable or logical. I’m waiting.

Sorry. I gave tit for tat. One said an argument was "twisting and i countered saying the contrary is twisting.No proof needed with negativity, hence sorry i responded in like kind. Both sides are strong and somewhat logical, both. I believe it is purposely beset with “choice”.

Let’s stay on topic, here.

Totally on topic for some, when scripture says about Christ that his “mother’s children” are alien to him, for NT says his brethren did not believe on Him before the resurrection, even thought He was off the deep end just after he started His 3 year ministry, and wanted Him to "rest’, come home (Mary was with them on this).

 

[Nicea325]

We would be just as close as a blood relative, and if none of your blood relatives are believers, we’d be closer. You are leaving out the part where the Lord’s family thought Him unhinged, crazy, nuts. He would not leave His Mother with someone that not only denied Him, but thought Him insane.

Again,sorry,but what you are implying does not change the Jewish practice at all. Having faith in Christ is one thing and following the Jewish custom is another. I seriously doubt Jesus an orthdox Jew was deliberately regarding the Jewish practice.

You are merely assuming that is why John remained responsible for Mary. Jewish practice would beg to differ with you.

 

[pocohombre]

[What I find absolutely astounding in this thread is some peoples’ apparent lack of ability to recognize that the Holy Family was NOT A STANDARD FAMILY.

Quite subjective, this “standard family”.

You can’t take everything that we consider normal and expect to apply it to them; different historical and cultural setting, plus GOD MADE FLESH.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Nicea325]

Quite subjective, this “standard family”.

The latter point , "God made flesh " is everyone’s starting point, a glorious, biblical one. That she or Joseph be anything than what is stated in scripture is all that is necessary. PV might seem fitting to some but not “essential,necessary”. His grace abounds either way doesn’t it

 

[Randy_Carson]

Posted previously -

SUMMARY OF THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENT SO FAR

1. Protestant translations of the Bible say that Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters”.
2. I am not comfortable with or disagree with the Catholic position because this is not what I grew up with; therefore, I refuse to believe it.

Statement 2. is an assumption that in some cases, is totally untrue. I was born and raised Catholic, including 12 years of Catholic school. I did grow up being taught PV. What we are taught growing up does not make something automatically true or false.

Luke 2:7 (DRA)
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Notice the 6th word in the Douay Rheims version and many other versions. It is firstborn. Why would the distinction of firstborn be made if there were no subsequent children born? Wouldn’t it just say her son? or her only son? and yet, it says her firstborn son. Hmmmm. It just makes me wonder………

Marilyn

“Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Already answered. Jesus taught explicitly that those who do the will of the Father are His brothers. James was not a believer at the time of the crucifixion, so He would never have let His Mother to the care of an unbeliever.

Speculation and a poor argument. Monica prayed for Augustine’s conversion for many years.

Jesus could have left Mary in James’ care knowing that she would have prayed without ceasing for her other “son”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We would be just as close as a blood relative, and if none of your blood relatives are believers, we’d be closer. You are leaving out the part where the Lord’s family thought Him unhinged, crazy, nuts. He would not leave His Mother with someone that not only denied Him, but thought Him insane.

Why would their opinion of Him cause them to be poor caretakers of her?

Wouldn’t it make more sense that James would refuse to allow his own mother to go and live with one of those fanatics who considered the lunatic, Jesus, to be divine?

And yet, she lived the remainder of her life with the “beloved disciple”.

Further, after James (and presumably his other “brothers”) became believers, why didn’t Mary move back home to be with her own children and grandchildren rather than staying with John?

 

[Kliska]

Speculation and a poor argument. Monica prayed for Augustine’s conversion for many years.

Jesus could have left Mary in James’ care knowing that she would have prayed without ceasing for her other “son”.

To me, just shows that people aren’t really understanding the depth of teaching of who are our brothers and sisters. There are only 2 types of humans, and the distinction is clear in the NT; believers and non. I’m kind of surprised that anyone thinks that Jesus would leave Mother Mary with an unbeliever anyway, regardless of the other arguments. Not just an unbeliever but one that called Him crazy and didn’t show to the crucifixion.

 

[Kliska]

Wouldn’t it make more sense that James would refuse to allow his own mother to go and live with one of those fanatics who considered the lunatic, Jesus, to be divine?

Jesus took care of that by making His pronouncement.

And yet, she lived the remainder of her life with the “beloved disciple”.

Further, after James (and presumably his other “brothers”) became believers, why didn’t Mary move back home to be with her own children rather than staying with John?

Because of the other reasons for picking John, including his symbolizing the church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To me, just shows that people aren’t really understanding the depth of teaching of who are our brothers and sisters. There are only 2 types of humans, and the distinction is clear in the NT; believers and non. I’m kind of surprised that anyone thinks that Jesus would leave Mother Mary with an unbeliever anyway, regardless of the other arguments. Not just an unbeliever but one that called Him crazy and didn’t show to the crucifixion.

And I asked in #214, what about after James became a believer?

 

[pocohombre]

Why does tradition have Mary remaining with John - in his home - if James finally came to the faith - would Mary not have then returned to her own child’s home?

I understand your point that.Jesus, being all knowing, could have foreseen James wonderful conversion, and said to Mary, “Mary, go live with James, though he can not console you know for his unbelief, he will eventually convert and be a solace to you”. Not too catchy or consoling to me. .Blood is not thicker than spirit . If I had young children and were going to die I would give them to a good friend who was a christian brother/sister more than to a blood brother who was not only not christian, but quite “anti-christian”. Faith demands this for Jesus said whoever does God’s will is my brother /mother etc. I am sorry, but Mary being given unto John and not faithless siblings is perfect, for the two hearts loved Jesus more than any two human beings on earth and were "kindred spirit’ about the mission ahead, beyond Calvary. Furthermore, we are all aware of sin and it’s consequences.Though you may be forgiven, sometimes the consequence may hurt (think David and Bathsheba forgiveness yet with consequence of his children would rail against him for years)… You are correct that Mary, by tradition, should have been given to siblings.That it was not was a wake up call to their unbelief. I believe James may have been miffed at the beginning, but when he got saved he was quite humbled and understood it perfectly, and "being passed up’ made the siblings stronger. A bit like Peter’s denial yet his gracious triumphant “rebound”. He would never forget his depravity when in the flesh ,and how gracious it is to be in the spirit, to be set right, to be forgiven. No wonder James rebounded as much as Peter, for we believe he eventually became bishop in Jerusalem and even wrote scripture. Can you imagine being Jesus’s brother and not just totally missing “it”, but being against it. So close to the creator of the universe yet so lost…Quite a story …may it grip you to the heart as it does me.

 

[YADA]

To me, just shows that people aren’t really understanding the depth of teaching of who are our brothers and sisters. There are only 2 types of humans, and the distinction is clear in the NT; believers and non. I’m kind of surprised that anyone thinks that Jesus would leave Mother Mary with an unbeliever anyway, regardless of the other arguments. Not just an unbeliever but one that called Him crazy and didn’t show to the crucifixion.

you say this **“To me, just shows that people aren’t really understanding the depth of teaching of who are our brothers and sisters. There are only 2 types of humans, and the distinction is clear in the NT; believers and non.” ** in one breath and then state that because the term brother can only mean a blood sibling - …You want to have it both ways … you are forcing your bias upon the scriptures …