Scripture and Mary

[teachccd]

That Mary never had other children is no less biblical than that she did have other children. There is not one time in scripture where any one is said to be Mary’s child other than Christ and there is none that says that Mary is anyones mother other than with Christ. The children that are mentioned as Jesus’ brothers are also mentioned at the crucifixion as the children of another Mary.

 

[teachccd]

No problem and I apologize for any offence on my part. When I strictly stick to the text of the Bible, like is my intention, that does not happen.

Likewise. A Christocentric faith can only be dealt with in the love of and for Christ. Ghandi said that he liked the Christ of Christianity but not the Christians. Because they are not like their Christ…Peace…teachccd

Now…back to the perpetual virginity of Mary…

 

[Pwrlftr]

Sounds to me like Calvin wasn’t promoting Mary’s ongoing childbearing…Just what I see, perhaps…

Uh…he thought the scriptures were silent on the matter which is a far cry from accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[jimmy]

Uh…he thought the scriptures were silent on the matter which is a far cry from accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So do you oppose the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[teachccd]

Uh…he thought the scriptures were silent on the matter which is a far cry from accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I was going by the quote in the previous post on his sermon on Matthew in 1562. The Bible is silent on which 27 books belong in the New Testament but you accept the New Testament canon.

And what you state is not necessarily true. Just because he thought that Scripture was silent does not automatically indicate his non-acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m taking your word on this as you did not reference where Calvin states this. Remember that Martin Luther held on to sola scriptura and he did indeed preach the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I was going by the quote in the previous post on his sermon on Matthew in 1562.

Go back and re-read the post. Clearly, Calvin writes "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards;…" Again, Calvin didn’t think there was enough proof one way or the other to determine whether or not Mary had other children. Catholics seem to be the only people capable of finding Calvin holding to the perpetual virginity.

And what you state is not necessarily true. Just because he thought that Scripture was silent does not automatically indicate his non-acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m taking your word on this as you did not reference where Calvin states this. Remember that Martin Luther held on to sola scriptura and he did indeed preach the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I don’t recall saying Calvin denied Mary’s perpetual virginity in fact, I thought I was quite clear that he believed the scriptures to be ambiguous in this regards. I’ll have to go back and see if I restated my case.

 

[teachccd]

Go back and re-read the post. Clearly, Calvin writes "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards;…" Again, Calvin didn’t think there was enough proof one way or the other to determine whether or not Mary had other children. Catholics seem to be the only people capable of finding Calvin holding to the perpetual virginity.

I don’t recall saying Calvin denied Mary’s perpetual virginity in fact, I thought I was quite clear that he believed the scriptures to be ambiguous in this regards. I’ll have to go back and see if I restated my case.

If you read this particular quote, in its context, it is quite clear that Calvin is NOT making a case for Mary’s additional children. And you are correct in what you highlighted. Matthew 1:22-25 does indicate a strong emphasis on the fact that Joseph did not know Mary prior to the birth of Christ and is not stating whether or not he did afterwards. So this makes no case either way. It remains obvious in other Scripture along with Apostolic Tradition that Mary remained a virgin.

John Calvin and Martin Luther, both “reformers” didn’t agree on all kinds of issues. Once the true Church divided, it became anyone’s guess as to what doctrines remained and which one’s got thrown out. I have some other quotes from Calvin indicating Mary’s perpetual virginity. I will dig them up and post them soon…teachccd

 

[Pwrlftr]

If you read this particular quote, in its context, it is quite clear that Calvin is NOT making a case for Mary’s additional children.

Did I say that he was?

 

[teachccd]

Did I say that he was?

I’m sorry if I missed something…

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m sorry if I missed something…

No problem.

 

[Janet_S]

Calvin: Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke Vol II

1. Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.
   ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.xxxix.html

1. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
   ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xv.html

Calvin mentions both Helvidius (who believed Mary had many children) and Jerome (who was a staunch defender of Mary’s perpetual virginity.) Calvin clearly disagrees with Helvidius, but not with Jerome. If he did disagree with Jerome, he certainly doesn’t mention it in this commentary.

If you contend Calvin was neutral about the matter, why did he criticize one (Helvidius) and not the other (Jerome)?

I have to say, Calvin’s quotes above, especially his explanation of Matthew 1:25, sound like the typical Catholic apologetics used today to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

He doesn’t sound neutral to me. He most definitely does not agree with Helvidius.

 

[Janet_S]

I think it’s pretty obvious from the above quotations that Calvin is referring to this document by St Jerome:
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.
Against Helvidius.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

The purpose of this document, as Jerome states, is to reply to a pamphlet written by Helvidius and to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary.

If you read this document and then read Calvin’s quotes in light of this document, it is clear where his sympathies lie.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Calvin: Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke Vol II

Calvin mentions both Helvidius (who believed Mary had many children) and Jerome (who was a staunch defender of Mary’s perpetual virginity.) Calvin clearly disagrees with Helvidius, but not with Jerome. If he did disagree with Jerome, he certainly doesn’t mention it in this commentary.

If you contend Calvin was neutral about the matter, why did he criticize one (Helvidius) and not the other (Jerome)?

I have to say, Calvin’s quotes above, especially his explanation of Matthew 1:25, sound like the typical Catholic apologetics used today to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

He doesn’t sound neutral to me. He most definitely does not agree with Helvidius.

Janet,

How much clearer can it be?

I quote from you:
Janet's Previous Post:

1. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. ***Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. ***It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

I don’t think he can be any clearer unless you want to force words in his mouth.

Now, I don’t think he puts forth an opinion either way since he clearly says one can not make a just inference to what happend later.

If you have something, other than silence, to illustrate that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary please post it as I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary ***must ***have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.

This of course fits perectly w/ Calvin’s belief that the scriptures are ambiguous on the perpetual virginity of Mary. He does not think that Helvidius could have properly been lead to believe that Mary MUST have had other children besides Jesus.

 

[TMC]

To go back to the question posed in the OP, I don’t think it would change Christianity a bit if Scripture said explicitly that Mary was ever virgin. Nor do I think it would change anything if it were clear that she had additional children.

I believe in PV because it is a long held tradition of the Church, there is no convincing opposing Scriptural authority, and there is no other reason not to. But I don’t think it is essential, or even important, to Christianity or to understanding Christ or His teachings. I think that Protestants think it is Catholics that are making a big deal out of this doctrine, not them. Setting aside anti-Catholics that just like to argue, most Protestants don’t seem to care much about it one way or the other.

 

[Janet_S]

This of course fits perectly w/ Calvin’s belief that the scriptures are ambiguous on the perpetual virginity of Mary. He does not think that Helvidius could have properly been lead to believe that Mary MUST have had other children besides Jesus.

Calvin says this and I don’t disagree:

Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.

Scripture says (in Matthew 1:25) that Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations before Jesus was born. That’s all it says. Many Catholic apologists today assert Calvin’s view against the arguments of many Protestants who disagree with Calvin and side with Helvidius. But that’s another story.

Anyway, to get back to the subject, you are claiming Calvin criticizes Helvidius for drawing the conclusion (based on Matthew 1:25) that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus when actually no conclusion can be drawn.

My question is if Calvin’s problem was with someone drawing a conclusion, why didn’t he criticize Jerome too? Jerome most definitely came to a conclusion–that Mary and Joseph never had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. Of course, Jerome bases his conclusion on more than Matthew 1:25 as you will see if you read his defense.

My claim is that Calvin’s sympathies seem to lie with Jerome. If they didn’t, why does he use Jerome’s arguments to dispute the conclusions of Helvidius? If Calvin really had no opinion one way or the other, why didn’t he say “Scripture is uncertain; both Helvidius and Jerome are reading too much into Scripture” and leave it at that?

I don’t have a particular quote of Calvin’s where he claims “I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.” But I do know this: Luther definitely did believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and neither this nor any other Marian doctrine was a key issue of the reformation.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Teachccd

You are correct in that I misspoke about Jesus “honoring His mother. I should have said that He did not show any “special honor” for her and in fact did not even take the opportunity to call her Mother, instead hHe referred to her as woman.

I disagree that most scholars understand that Jesus calling Mary woman was a form of respect. It shows a lack of respect if anything. He should have called her mother. You can’t possibly believe that calling her woman showed respect.

You say Martin Luther also thought she remained a virgin and sinless. Well I would like references to Martin Luther’s writings that show that. One must realize however, that he had been raised a catholic with all the catholic beliefs until he had the opportunity to actually read the Scriptures himself. Then he saw what all the catholic church was teaching that was not Biblical. Hence his nailing the 95 theses to the church door. He did this to show how far wrong the pope and Catholic Church was. Of course he paid for it with his life as well.

You say we can’t take Paul at face value when he said “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23) How naïve. Now we are to believe only *part *of the Bible? The Scriptures tell us elsewhere that Christ was without sin and a God cannot sin. God made no special exception for Mary. Show us the Scriptures if that is so.

Mary cannot be the mother of God. God pre-existed or else everything we believe has been wrong and the Scriptures are wrong. How could Mary have been the mother of God? She was only the mother of the human nature of God, not the mother of God. God has no mother. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost always was and is and always will be. To believe otherwise would be sacreligious.

Zografou

I have already commented on Christ honoring Mary above. You asked for quotes about Mary having other children and the quote about “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I am sure you know they were speaking of Jesus and if Jesus had brothers and sisters, then Mary was the mother.

Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Again, Matthew has the same thing to say. No mention is made of cousins or other kin….

The other quote you wanted is listed above in the first part of this post. Paul says that “all” have sinned and let’s all remember that Paul was comverted long after Christ’s ascension to heaven and long after Chirist had given the care of His mother to John. If she had been without sin, then Paul would have known it.

jcrichton

You also had something to say that there are contradictions in the Bible but I dispute that. I ask you to name one if you can. You also says that Christ gave no further instructions on how to build a church. Are you not aware of Paul who Christ converted and then took him into the desert for three years in order to teach him the gospel and all he needed to know about building a church? Do you think Paul made up all he had to say? No! It was revelation directly from Jesus Christ Himself that gave everything to Paul. Notice he did not give it to Peter.

Jimmy

You need to read a little more about Christ’s brothers and sisters. Read the Scriptures I have presented above. Those mentioned at the cruxifiction were identified.

It ir quite OK and commendable to want to believe that Mary remained a virgin but you cannot find that in Scripture. In fact it tells us otherwise. There would have been no reason to say that “Joseph knewhis wife til she had her first-born unless he had then “known” her. Good Jewish tradition called for wives to submit to their husbands and to think that there was no intercourse between Joseph and Mary is really quite naïve.

This is another of those fallacies the RCC teaches that if it were true, God would have certainly made us aware of it in Scripture, since it is such an important part of the Catholic Church. It is strange however, that like so many Catholic beliefs, it did not begin until much later than the Scriptures were written and even then nor during the first century.

Perhaps someone could list the Scriptures that show Mary remained a virgin and was sinless…?

 

[Janet_S]

You say Martin Luther also thought she remained a virgin and sinless. Well I would like references to Martin Luther’s writings that show that. One must realize however, that he had been raised a catholic with all the catholic beliefs until he had the opportunity to actually read the Scriptures himself. Then he saw what all the catholic church was teaching that was not Biblical. Hence his nailing the 95 theses to the church door. He did this to show how far wrong the pope and Catholic Church was. Of course he paid for it with his life as well.
He paid with his life? Yes, he is dead now, but no one killed him. Are you claiming that the Catholic Church killed him?

If the Catholic Church never gave Luther access to a Bible, how did he end up teaching Scripture at the University of Wittenberg?

Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and this was not a doctrine denied by any of the reformers. Here are some of Luther’s quotes:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

his wife til she had her first-born unless he had then “known” her. Good Jewish tradition called for wives to submit to their husbands and to think that there was no intercourse between Joseph and Mary is really quite naïve.

Look at the previous posts. Calvin and Luther as well as St Jerome all say this verse (Matthew 1:25) states Mary and Joseph had no sexual relations before Jesus was born. That is all it states. It doesn’t say anything about sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.

You are making the same argument Helvidius did, and Calvin, Luther, and St Jerome all argue against Helvidius.

St Jerome does argue the case for Mary’s perpetual virginity here:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

I think even you would have to agree St Jerome knows a thing or two about Biblical scholarship.

 

[anthony022071]

Mary cannot be the mother of God. God pre-existed or else everything we believe has been wrong and the Scriptures are wrong. How could Mary have been the mother of God? She was only the mother of the human nature of God, not the mother of God. God has no mother. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost always was and is and always will be. To believe otherwise would be sacreligious.

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead.” Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius, 101 (A.D. 382).

“And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God.” John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, II:2 (A.D. 430).

Again, Matthew has the same thing to say. No mention is made of cousins or other kin….

That is because in Hebrew the word “brothers” can refer to cousins and other kin,and that is what even Martin Luther and John Calvin recognized.

 

[anthony022071]

Are you not aware of Paul who Christ converted and then took him into the desert for three years in order to teach him the gospel and all he needed to know about building a church? Do you think Paul made up all he had to say? No! It was revelation directly from Jesus Christ Himself that gave everything to Paul. Notice he did not give it to Peter.

Peter did not need the revelation that Paul received,because Peter directly knew Jesus. Jesus made Peter the rock (kephas) upon which he built his church,and Paul knew that. It was to Peter that the resurrected Christ told to “Feed my sheep”. Jesus was the Good Shepherd,and Jesus made Peter a shepherd of the church. Paul refers to Peter as Kephas,which in the Aramaic means both “head” and “rock”. Paul sought out Peter in Jerusalem for information and verification of the gospel he had been preaching.

It ir quite OK and commendable to want to believe that Mary remained a virgin but you cannot find that in Scripture. In fact it tells us otherwise. There would have been no reason to say that “Joseph knewhis wife til she had her first-born unless he had then “known” her. Good Jewish tradition called for wives to submit to their husbands and to think that there was no intercourse between Joseph and Mary is really quite naïve.

The all of the church fathers and theologians were naive?

This is another of those fallacies the RCC teaches that if it were true, God would have certainly made us aware of it in Scripture, since it is such an important part of the Catholic Church. It is strange however, that like so many Catholic beliefs, it did not begin until much later than the Scriptures were written and even then nor during the first century.

The church fathers did not beleive in sola scriptura,they beleived in scripture and tradition.

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Perhaps someone could list the Scriptures that show Mary remained a virgin and was sinless…?

Scripture doesn’t say it,the church fathers who were heirs to the apostolic tradition say it.

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

“[T]he Son of God…was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit…” Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?” Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).