SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[kepha1]

“What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?”

Let me see if I understand the question. Let’s try another person in a similar question:

What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Paul remaining celibate after Acts 9?

Maybe if you can answer my question, I will be able to understand your question better.

 

[po18guy]

What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?

By remaining ever virgin, she fulfilled her vow to be the bond slave of the Lord (Luke 1:38). Since she was the slave of the Lord, whom else could she serve? How many masters did her Son teach that we can serve? (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). Since she spent Jesus’ entire life with Him, do you suppose that she heard this teaching? And that assumes that she had not made her vow at the annunciation. Her continuing virginal life demonstrated not only the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, but stood as the only proof, physical and spiritual, of that same virgin birth. Virgin afterward is proof positive of virginity before. There is no other proof.

 

[po18guy]

You seem to be in direct conflict with numerous ECFs:

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):

Archelaus (a. 277):

**Ambrose (c. 339-97): **
Problem #1: Not one of these fathers was the Bishop of Rome.
Problem #2: or a Church council.
Problem #3: None of them ever suggested or endorsed private interpretation.
Problem #4: You fail to note that each and every one of them submitted to the authority of the Church in these and all other matters.
Problem #5: None of this has the slightest thing to do with Mary.
Problem #6: Even using different scriptures to clarify, it takes a human, with authority, to make that clarification.
Problem #6: Where does the bible teach private interpretation?
Problem #7: Where in the bible is “interpretation of scripture” listed as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Why not just admit that the Catholic Church was right when it assembled the bible?

 

[po18guy]

** These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

David T. King p.112
**

First of all, if Mr. King actually authored this cut-and-paste, his own hand reveals his abject Ignorance of the Catholic faith which he so stridently condemns. If so, we are talking capital “I” ignorance here. Secondly, he writes from a position of ignorance regarding the content of the oral Apostolic Traditions (paradosis), because his faith doesn’t have them.

To gain any traction here, you will need a more reliable source of mis-information.

 

[po18guy]

First of all, if Mr. King actually authored this cut-and-paste, his own hand reveals his abject Ignorance of the Catholic faith which he so stridently condemns. If so, we are talking capital “I” ignorance here. Secondly, he writes from a position of ignorance regarding the content of the oral Apostolic Traditions (paradosis), because his faith doesn’t have them.

To gain any traction here, you will need a more reliable source of mis-information.

Here is an expose of Mr. King’s tired twisting of the early Church fathers in a rather pathetic attempt to justify sola scriptura. Although it is not germane to this thread, Mr. King does seem to have elevated the distortion of scripture to near art-form level.

 

[BrianH]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7618

All of those lines are people who were raised Methodist. Look at the blue line. Those are ex-Methodists who are now Catholic.

From USA Today:
The Roman Catholic Church (No. 1) and the Southern Baptist Convention (No. 2) are still significantly larger than all other North American denominations, but Catholics posted minimal growth of less than 1 %, and Southern Baptist membership fell for a third straight year, according to the 2011 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches.
The figures in the 2011 yearbook, compiled by churches in 2009 and reported to the council in 2010, show that mainline Protestant churches continue the decline in memberships that began in the 1970s. The newest numbers show that the membership drop in mainline churches led to a 1% decrease in total U.S. church membership, to 145.8 million.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) led with the greatest membership drop of the 25 largest denominations, down 2.6%.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

But the mainline are not jumping ship. They are dying. Which is what is occuring in Europe with both Protestants and Catholics both but lets stick to the US.
That is why they are declining (death and younger people not attending or joining). But the discussion was Protestants not just Methodists or I would have responded with Methodist statistics of course.
The topic is who actually jumps ship and leaves one church to go to the other.
More Catholics as a percentage and numerically (ie actual raw numbers which of course has to do with the large number to begin with) jump ship. 1 of 10 people are ex-Catholics according to the second link. That can be broken down by Catholics who just quit going and then those who actually change churches as in the case of the first link.
It is not true that Protestants jump ship more than Catholics. I am precise when I use numbers and careful not to cart out apples when we are discussing oranges (which you just did as you can probably see now).

 

[BrianH]

I am afraid that your own preconceived notions have led you to a wrong conclusion.

Look up the word until. It means up to a certain time. It does not mean anything after that time. If you try to imply that the condition changed to the opposite you run into a load of problem.
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23).
And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day.(Deuteronomy 34:6)
Jesus is with us until the end of the age (Matt 28:20)
When the true definition is used the problem disappears. In each case, it is referring to a period of time up to and nothing is implied afterwards.

Exactly the reason I used the context. Hoes hou can and more often does mean a change in status as used in the New Testament Greek.
The use of the Old Testament Greek (which is a translation of the Hebrew original) is an interesting idea but…not a particularly good one.
Break out every use of hoes hou (until…till in the KJV) in the New Testament
it DOES indicate the previous activity (or lack of activity in this particular case) stops or changes. :

Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. (hoes hou was translated “while” here)

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

Luk 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Act 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

Act 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

[jerry_joseph]

The church teaches that Mary, who is to be called blessed, was ever a virgin. But in the Gospels she has 4 sons mentioned and the word “sisters” used talking about Jesus. Now i know that the word Brother can be used to mean cousin, but the word for sisters can only be translatted to mean sister. Holy Spirit does not confuse people. So lets look at why Mary has to be a eternal virgin. I don’t find anything in Scripture that says if she was or was not that will add to my salvation.

Term brother and sister is used to introduce cousins also in middle east and Asia. I also introduce my cousin as brother to other’s.

Also one question. If mary had other children , why Jesus appointed John to take care of his mother before his death on cross.?.

If mary had other children , is this is required?.

If mary had other children will they allow John to take care of their mother when they are alive?..

Is any traditional christian churches such as Catholic or Orthodox churches believes that mary is not eternal virgin?.

These types of beliefs originated among those protestant and Pentecostal churches. Dont give any importance to the arguments of these new generation churches.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but, to me, the article only points out why Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. My question is not about what Catholics believe (I understand that) but why it would matter whether one believed it or not. Hopefully that makes sense. Prophecy is great but if it has no circumstance that makes it meaningful then it does not seem important to me. Maybe this question would be better…What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?

If someone else passed through the Gate, then Jesus would not be the Messiah and the Jews would have been correct in their decision to crucify Him.

If you cannot understand this then you have not read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I just have a simple question as a non-catholic person:

What difference does it make if Mary remained a virgin or not? I can see why it makes HUGE difference prior to the birth of Jesus but why does it matter for after?

It matters because of Jesus. Either Jesus is who He is and the Bible is His inerrant, God-breathed word, or. . .He isn’t.

If He IS who He is and the Bible is therefore His inerrant, God-breathed word, then by that word itself Jesus would have had to fulfill all the prophecies found in the Old Testament, because the Old testament isn’t just some quaint little book of ‘fables’. EVERY WORD in the Old Testament has a relationship to every word in the New Testament, and then some.

IF Mary were not to remain a perpetual Virgin, passages and passages of Old Testament prophecy would NOT be fulfilled, and thus would not be true.

So it is not ‘about Mary’. It is, as it always is, all about Jesus. If we do not preach the WHOLE truth about Jesus, then we are not doing His will, we are not preaching the full gospel, we are, in fact, worshipping at the best only a ‘partial’ Christ (in which it becomes fatally easy to miss enough truth that the partial becomes the opposite of the REAL Christ). . .at the worst we erect and worship a FALSE god and proclaim falsehood as truth, risking ours, and others’, salvation.

It matters.

All truth matters. We can’t just ‘pick and choose’ the truths we ‘want’, and ignore, or reject with loathing, what we ‘don’t like.’

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

IF Mary were not to remain a perpetual Virgin, passages and passages of Old Testament prophecy would NOT be fulfilled, and thus would not be true.

Would you be so kind as to give us some of those references?

 

[Tomb54]

Tomb54,
Whenever Irenaeus declares that “[the] apostolic testimony or tradition” is handed down orally he is referring to the contents of what Irenaeus called ‘the rule of faith’… Irenaeus tells us what this ‘rule of faith’ contains. It is not the unwritten or oral traditions such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Papal Primacy, Purgatory or Indulgences. He presents his readers with the very content of this ‘rule’.

All of this from Scripture and contained in the creed.
Please re-read the context of your quotes in the link below.

Source

Actually it looks like you are wrong. Your link brought up first that the truth is held by the leader of the Catholic Church (mentions Linus, Clement and other succssors) The other page in the same paragraph points to what it is talking about as the Deposit of Faith or Truth which is in the Church. He aslo mentions this church as being the Catholic Church. In Fact he point directly that all must agree with the Church of Rome. By the way yes the post you had is also in the Church as part of that Tradition (early Apostles Creed) but the Church is not dead but living and as my early post showed Jesus said the Spirit will lead His Church in all truths. Leading is not instantanious but can take time. Like the teaching on the Trinity took time to develop.

 

[Tomb54]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but, to me, the article only points out why Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. My question is not about what Catholics believe (I understand that) but why it would matter whether one believed it or not. Hopefully that makes sense. Prophecy is great but if it has no circumstance that makes it meaningful then it does not seem important to me. Maybe this question would be better…What is something meaningful that happened as a result of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ?

Slinger as Cat Herder showed there are some issues people over time in those that attacked the early Church used to try to show Jesus was not God by using Mary. First He was man only and did not fulfill the prophecies or that he was not truely man and was only God( several versions of this) Defending the teachings on Mary means holding the the truth about Jesus. There is even the possibility for non-believer to say Jesus sinned becuase the Bible states He was born under the Law (which he was) but they have to prove Mary was not ever virgin for this claim to work also.

 

[Algo1]

Here is an expose of Mr. King’s tired twisting of the early Church fathers in a rather pathetic attempt to justify sola scriptura. Although it is not germane to this thread, Mr. King does seem to have elevated the distortion of scripture to near art-form level.

I have noticed that Mr. Armstrong does not have a single source reference from the Webster/King series. That does not surprise me since I had learned from James Swan that Dave Armstrong refuses to purchase any so-called “Anti-Catholic” material. Not sure how he could have “written a thorough rebuttal” of King’s work if he did not have King’s work.

Here is an actual critique of the 3 Vol. Series by Phil Porvaznik. Phil actually interacted with the published work.
Prior to the publishing of this work several R.C Apologists announced that they were going to demolish the claims and arguments that Webster/King have presented. After the books were released Sungenis, Madrid and Ray all retreated into the shadows and removed any and all saber rattling from their websites. Only PhilVaz has kept his challenge open and it appears by the post at the bottom of his intro. that he is still seeking volunteers to help in refuting this work.

 

[passer_by]

The church teaches that Mary, who is to be called blessed, was ever a virgin. But in the Gospels she has 4 sons mentioned and the word “sisters” used talking about Jesus. Now i know that the word Brother can be used to mean cousin, but the word for sisters can only be translatted to mean sister. Holy Spirit does not confuse people. So lets look at why Mary has to be a eternal virgin. I don’t find anything in Scripture that says if she was or was not that will add to my salvation.

You do realize that this is a topic that has been hammered on so many past threads?

But to be serious about your question, you do have to first ask why you even think only Scripture contains matters important for salvation, right?

In other words, what I am trying to say is that you might be missing part of the picture here because of an incorrect assumption that comes from nowhere i.e. Scripture alone has what I need for salvation.

Think about it this way, let us say, hypothetically, that Scripture says, for salvation, it is important that you listen, obey and accept truths defined by a certain group of people. Now won’t you be missing out on a lot of things then?

For an example, St. Paul says in 2 Thes 2:15

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.”

Now by believing that everything you need is in the written Bible, you are going to miss out on all the ‘traditions’ he mentions that are transmitted by ‘word of mouth’ that he asks to ‘hold fast’ to.

If you think about this for a bit, you might find some greater insights, not just in to the matter of Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin mother, but other things as well.

I hope that helps!

 

[po18guy]

I have noticed that Mr. Armstrong does not have a single source reference from the Webster/King series. That does not surprise me since I had learned from James Swan that Dave Armstrong refuses to purchase any so-called “Anti-Catholic” material. Not sure how he could have “written a thorough rebuttal” of King’s work if he did not have King’s work.

Here is an actual critique of the 3 Vol. Series by Phil Porvaznik. Phil actually interacted with the published work.
Prior to the publishing of this work several R.C Apologists announced that they were going to demolish the claims and arguments that Webster/King have presented. After the books were released Sungenis, Madrid and Ray all retreated into the shadows and removed any and all saber rattling from their websites. Only PhilVaz has kept his challenge open and it appears by the post at the bottom of his intro. that he is still seeking volunteers to help in refuting this work.

Armstrong apparently does not wish to add profit to what he sees as error. The books are available in Church and public libraries. This does not mean that he did not have their books. How could he address their assertions, without knowing them? His argument is not simply “I’m right and you’re wrong”!

I do not mean to offend, but any and all protestant material is, by definition, error. It is untrustworthy, from a Catholic viewpoint, since the Holy Spirit does not lead to division, but only and always to humble submission and unity.

In any event, we are far off topic. Without adding words or meaning to scripture, I see more evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity. I agree with Protestant fathers Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli as to Mary’s perpetual virginity. As well, I have common ground with even Jean Calvin, who cautioned against impious speculation as to “other children”.

As a legal precept, the weight of even scriptural evidence amounts to a preponderance. To labor outside of that is to be driven by an agenda.

What concerns me is the identity of the spirit which has lead so many Christians to oppose even their spiritual fathers.

 

[Slinger]

Slinger as Cat Herder showed there are some issues people over time in those that attacked the early Church used to try to show Jesus was not God by using Mary. First He was man only and did not fulfill the prophecies or that he was not truely man and was only God( several versions of this) Defending the teachings on Mary means holding the the truth about Jesus. There is even the possibility for non-believer to say Jesus sinned becuase the Bible states He was born under the Law (which he was) but they have to prove Mary was not ever virgin for this claim to work also.

Now there’s a good explanation. Thanks!!!

I have really never given much though to Mary except that she was an honorable woman and wondered why the belief of her perpetual virginity was so important. I guess I thought people held her in high regard partly because of their belief that she was a virgin after Christ’s birth (which didn’t make sense to me)…but, it sounds like that is not true. From what you say, it sounds like the importance of this belief is tied to the fulfillment of prophecy. Makes sense!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Would you be so kind as to give us some of those references?

I already did. Twice.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Now there’s a good explanation. Thanks!!!

I have really never given much though to Mary except that she was an honorable woman and wondered why the belief of her perpetual virginity was so important. I guess I thought people held her in high regard partly because of their belief that she was a virgin after Christ’s birth (which didn’t make sense to me)…but, it sounds like that is not true. From what you say, it sounds like the importance of this belief is tied to the fulfillment of prophecy. Makes sense!

Correct… I am glad it does now.

 

[Algo1]

I do not mean to offend, but any and all protestant material is, by definition, error. It is untrustworthy, from a Catholic viewpoint, since the Holy Spirit does not lead to division, but only and always to humble submission and unity.

What concerns me is the identity of the spirit which has lead so many Christians to oppose even their spiritual fathers.

So, did the Holy spirit lead to the division between Orthodox and Arian, between Orthodox and Copts, between Orthodox and Monothelites, between Iconoclasts and Iconodules, between East and West, and between Rome and the Reformation?

If not, then how does Rome have any superior claim?
If she ought not to have excommunicated the Protestants …
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the EOs
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Monothelites
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Copts …
IF she ought not to have excommunicated the Arians …
Then there would be less division - more unity, right?

So, was the Holy Spirit behind that or not?