|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/11/2005 2:03:04 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7707
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: online
|
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
Why do Catholics believe that Mary is a virgin for all time?
How do Catholics explain the verses in the Bible that refer to the brothers of Jesus?
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/11/2005 10:18:38 PM
|
|
|
superdave
Posts: 25
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Atlanta, Georgia!
Status: offline
|
That’s because the term "brother" could easily have many different meanings. It does not automatically imply a blood brother. I've had men call my little boy "son" but it does not mean he is their son, it is a term of affection. I think we must remember the Bible was written many years ago in a foreign land with different customs than ours.
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/11/2005 10:23:08 PM
|
|
|
superdave
Posts: 25
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Atlanta, Georgia!
Status: offline
|
Also why is it so difficult to believe Mary could have remained a virgin for the rest of her life? I'm sure many women have and it is nothing supernatural. I always get the feeling that Protestants are determined to bring her, and others, down to a lower level. Is it pride? Maybe it is hard to admit that there are other people far more pious then ourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/11/2005 10:46:45 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I always get the feeling that Protestants are determined to bring her, and others, down to a lower level. Is it pride? Maybe it is hard to admit that there are other people far more pious then ourselves?
Hard to admit? Not at all. There are so many more people who are far more godly than myself.
Pride? Nice one. 
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/11/2005 11:51:15 PM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdave
Also why is it so difficult to believe Mary could have remained a virgin for the rest of her life? I'm sure many women have and it is nothing supernatural. I always get the feeling that Protestants are determined to bring her, and others, down to a lower level. Is it pride? Maybe it is hard to admit that there are other people far more pious then ourselves?
Sounds like people who think they are more pious, have reason to boast? I believe it was God's word that says no man can boast. Speaking of Mary, though...this isn't about her being a virgin. It's about the topic of her being called "sinless".
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 12:24:01 AM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Mary: Ever Virgin
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).
Origen
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome
"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
Leporius
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 1:04:25 AM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 752
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The implication here is that he did know her after Jesus was born.
Matthew 12:46-49
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Here there is a distinction being made between mother and brethren as opposed to the general population and even His disciples. The context is clear that these were His blood realations.
Matthew 13:55-56
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?
The people in His home town are offended because of their familiarity with Jesus and His family. Again the context clearly indicates blood realations.
John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Now if the term "brethren" just referred to close friends etc, then surely the disciples would have been the ones to be referred to as such, yet they never are.
John 7:3-5
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Acts 1:13-14
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Again a distinction between the Apostles and the brethren of Jesus.
Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
This is the same brother the people in His home town named in Matthew 13:55. No other Apostle is ever referred to as the Lord's brother
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 1:22:23 AM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 752
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I think one problem some have with Jesus having brothers and sisters is that it makes Him human like us. Pretty much everyone, Catholics and Protestant, will agree that Jesus is God but many have trouble with the humanity of Jesus. Also there seems to be this determined struggle by some to promote Mary the mother of Jesus to the same level as Jesus which is clearly against scripture. The scripture clearly states that the name of Jesus is above every name, even Mary's.
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 8:15:15 AM
|
|
|
superdave
Posts: 25
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Atlanta, Georgia!
Status: offline
|
No, we believe Jesus was fully human and God at the same time. Mary was a regular person certainly, but also incredibly pious. Why would Jesus, while on the cross, entrust Mary to someone other than another son if such a person existed?
I still say that some Protestants are very proud, and that causes them a problem with all this. I know this from discussions with my family members that are devout church-going people. But they have a serious issue with placing someone above themselves in any way. Also they have been raised so anti-catholic that they reject any catholic teaching as wrong in an almost knee jerk reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 9:10:50 AM
|
|
|
superdave
Posts: 25
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Atlanta, Georgia!
Status: offline
|
We do call her sinless, but not sinless in the same manner as Jesus. We believe Mary did not act on her sinful impulses but she surely had them as we all do. Our teaching on this differs greatly from the Catholic Church but I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain it well. All I can say is we do not worship Mary or make her equal with Jesus, but we do ask her to pray for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/12/2005 9:40:19 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The implication here is that he did know her after Jesus was born.
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). So then you'll agree the implication here is that she had children after her death then, right?
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Here there is a distinction being made between mother and brethren as opposed to the general population and even His disciples. The context is clear that these were His blood realations.
Indeed, blood relatives yes. But not brothers as we know the term. The language and culture of that time period used the terms "bretheren" and "brothers" in many ways. Check out how Lot, Abraham's nephew, is called his "brother" in Genesis 14:14. And then we have Jacob/Israel who is referred to as his uncle Laban's "brother" in Gen. 29:15. ANd of course the daughters of Eleazer obviously didn't marry their own brothers as they had none, but they did marry their "bretheren", the sons of Kish (their cousins), in 1 Chr. 23:21–22.
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Kind of odd that since Jesus was the first born (read: oldest son) His younger brothers would give Him advice as that simply wasn't done in those times. But it does make sense when you realize they're NOT the sons of Mary but rather Jesus' older cousins.
Also, examine Mark 6:3, Jesus is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary. The implication here is that Jesus was an only child.
There's more, but alas, I need to get ready for work. I'm sure someone else will fill in what I missed. :D
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/13/2005 2:41:25 PM
|
|
|
Wildcloud
Posts: 1
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
I did not know where to post this, but I like to say that after being absent for a long time, I like the new look and ability to discuss Catholic issues. Well done administrators!
_____________________________
Do not be afraid -- Pope John Paul II
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/13/2005 5:46:51 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The implication here is that he did know her after Jesus was born. Not in Greek. The original is ambiguous, not implied as you have read from your English translation here.
Matthew 12:46-49
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Here there is a distinction being made between mother and brethren as opposed to the general population and even His disciples. The context is clear that these were His blood realations. Again, you are reading your Anglo-centric culture into this and not as it would have been understood at the time. They might have been part of a "familiar" group (note the same root as the word "family") of close associates, they might have has some kind of "cousin" kinship, even.
Matthew 13:55-56
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?
The people in His home town are offended because of their familiarity with Jesus and His family. Again the context clearly indicates blood realations. They are concerned about "familiarity" - but you are reading your concept of "family" in, as opposed to the Greek which reflects "familiar" - close; intimate - but not neccesarily blood.
John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Now if the term "brethren" just referred to close friends etc, then surely the disciples would have been the ones to be referred to as such, yet they never are.
John 7:3-5
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Acts 1:13-14
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Again a distinction between the Apostles and the brethren of Jesus.
Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
This is the same brother the people in His home town named in Matthew 13:55. No other Apostle is ever referred to as the Lord's brother
The problem I have with your reading is two-fold:
- A lack of understanding that "familiar" and "familial" are distinctive in English, where they weren't in Greek 9and in Aramaic, for that matter)
- An attribution to Mary for the motherhood of technically about 10 or twelve people over a short span of time, brothers and sisters, some named and others anonymous. The math doesn't work. The siblings are never consistently named or numbered. Jesus would have had to have been the oldest, yes?
I have problems with a kinship of Jesus resulting in a "sanctified line" of religious "royalty" (for want of a better term). Dan Brown pens this up in the "Da Vinci Code", and it sounds ridiculous (did Jesus's divinity get passed through the blood-line? Why? Why not?) A "blood-relation" of Jesus probably would have exploited that standing by now, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/14/2005 8:32:35 PM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 752
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The problem I have with your reading is two-fold:
- A lack of understanding that "familiar" and "familial" are distinctive in English, where they weren't in Greek 9and in Aramaic, for that matter)
The context of the passages definately give the idea of blood realations.
quote:
- An attribution to Mary for the motherhood of technically about 10 or twelve people over a short span of time, brothers and sisters, some named and others anonymous. The math doesn't work. The siblings are never consistently named or numbered. Jesus would have had to have been the oldest, yes?
What is so difficult about have 10-12 children in 30 years? I have 5 in 14 years and that without twins or triplets. There is nothing wrong with the math. Why do you think 30 years is a short span of time? Also in Mark 6:3, four brothers are mentioned by name and an undisclosed number of sisters. Let's say for arguments sake that there were four sisters also that would only make 8 so I don't know where you get your 10 or 12 from. And again the context of the passage makes it clear that His biological brothers and sisters were being spoken of.
quote:
I have problems with a kinship of Jesus resulting in a "sanctified line" of religious "royalty" (for want of a better term). Dan Brown pens this up in the "Da Vinci Code", and it sounds ridiculous (did Jesus's divinity get passed through the blood-line? Why? Why not?) A "blood-relation" of Jesus probably would have exploited that standing by now, don't you think?
First of all, the "Da Vinci Code" is pure rubbish and not to be considered at all concerning Christ and the Gospel. Secondly in the "Da Vinci Code" Dan Brown claims that Jesus Himself had children which is totally not true. Thirdly the only way the blood line could have continued would have been if Jesus did have children Himself since Jesus' Father was God not Joseph. Technically the brothers and sisters of Jesus would have been half brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/15/2005 10:49:26 AM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
The context of the passages definately give the idea of blood realations. Not in Greek - it is ambiguous.
What is so difficult about have 10-12 children in 30 years? Where do you get 30 years from? We are talking about Gospel references. Even if Mary had Jesus at 15, Mary is 45 by the time of Jesus's public ministry. Ladies - ever even try to have a kid at 45? A lot harder to do than at 25. So - we are talking a lot of kids in a short time - Jesus had to be the first child, because he was "born of a virgin". I have 5 in 14 years and that without twins or triplets. There is nothing wrong with the math. Why do you think 30 years is a short span of time? Also in Mark 6:3, four brothers are mentioned by name and an undisclosed number of sisters. Let's say for arguments sake that there were four sisters also that would only make 8 so I don't know where you get your 10 or 12 from. And again the context of the passage makes it clear that His biological brothers and sisters were being spoken of. How? - again the Greek is ambiguous - you are reading something into your English translation that is not there in the original, but is there in the translation, because English handles impersonal pronouns differently than Greek.
First of all, the "Da Vinci Code" is pure rubbish and not to be considered at all concerning Christ and the Gospel. Secondly in the "Da Vinci Code" Dan Brown claims that Jesus Himself had children which is totally not true. Thirdly the only way the blood line could have continued would have been if Jesus did have children Himself since Jesus' Father was God not Joseph. Technically the brothers and sisters of Jesus would have been half brothers and sisters. I am referring to someone perhaps who might claim "uncle Jesus". I believe that Jesus belonged to Mary matriarchically and had no other relatives, but many in His "family" (familiar - intimate - close)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/15/2005 11:01:38 AM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
This might sound silly, but where is the Scripture that tells us Mary was 45 at the end of Jesus' ministry?
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/15/2005 11:14:10 AM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sadiebelle
This might sound silly, but where is the Scripture that tells us Mary was 45 at the end of Jesus' ministry?
It doesn't - but I was trying to do a little math in my head. If Jesus was about 30 during His public mission and during His passion and crucifixion, and if Mary was a mere 15 when He was born - she would have been 45 at the end of Jesus's earthly mission.
If she was 30 when she gave birth to Him, then she would have been 60 at the end of Jesus's earthly ministry. My bet is that 60 for a woman in the first century would have been remarkable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/15/2005 11:25:52 AM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
I am referring to someone perhaps who might claim "uncle Jesus". I believe that Jesus belonged to Mary matriarchically and had no other relatives, but many in His "family" (familiar - intimate - close)
You know what I found strange about that though? Why was James, of all people, used with that context more than anyone else? I mean, John was the disciple "Jesus loved" why isn't he called a "brother"?
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/15/2005 11:36:55 AM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sadiebelle
You know what I found strange about that though? Why was James, of all people, used with that context more than anyone else? I mean, John was the disciple "Jesus loved" why isn't he called a "brother"?
Good question.....
Off to the Bible and the Catechism.
My quick "off the top off my head answer" is that this terminology was not as specific to a "person" as it is to a "Church" (Marcan, Lucan, Johanian, Pauline, Petrine, Matthean etc.). In other words, one is more apt to find this usage in "Q" for example, from which two Gospels are derived, as an example, than in "John".
I'll edit this little later to add what I find.
< Message edited by GoodME -- 4/15/2005 11:40:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/17/2005 2:29:41 AM
|
|
|
whisper
Posts: 161
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm not very familiar with the arguments of perpeptual virginity of Mary, but I'm confused by this:
" We do call her sinless, but not sinless in the same manner as Jesus. We believe Mary did not act on her sinful impulses but she surely had them as we all do. "
Certainly you don't think Mary was without sin! There is no one who is good but God alone. So if by sinful impulses you meant sexual impulses... well then, I fail to see how wanting sex with your husband is a sin.
Either way, I'm confused.
_____________________________
You can't make footprints in the sands of time if you're sitting on your bum. And who wants to make bumprints in the sands of time?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/17/2005 12:33:05 PM
|
|
|
sadiebelle
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Northern California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
quote:
ORIGINAL: sadiebelle
You know what I found strange about that though? Why was James, of all people, used with that context more than anyone else? I mean, John was the disciple "Jesus loved" why isn't he called a "brother"?
Good question.....
Off to the Bible and the Catechism.
My quick "off the top off my head answer" is that this terminology was not as specific to a "person" as it is to a "Church" (Marcan, Lucan, Johanian, Pauline, Petrine, Matthean etc.). In other words, one is more apt to find this usage in "Q" for example, from which two Gospels are derived, as an example, than in "John".
I'll edit this little later to add what I find.
I look forward to it. 
_____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prone to wander Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above ~ Come Thou Fount
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 4/17/2005 4:21:39 PM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
