Here's a comment I made in another thread below that is also now off the front page of the blog:
=============================
squeekers wrote:
>I already tried that. I got all manner of answers EXCEPT the answer I asked for. So you will just have to understand my position if I consider asking any more questions a waste of time.
This is untrue. Just to set the record straight, I referred you to three of my papers in a post of three days ago, above (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/ 112918076747696493/?a=28613#19461), which delve into the question you were asking at the greatest length. But you ignored that.
I'm the full-time apologist here; you can't expect everyone to have an answer for every question you ask. That's my job, and I replied. But if you ignore the reply, then it is hardly possible to continue.
I wouldn't have debated you further, per my policy, but like I said, I'm sure many here would.
And even though I no longer debate anti-Catholics as a general rule, I have always allowed an exception for one who actually tackles any of my papers with an exhaustive, point-by-point attempted rebuttal. Needless to say, that virtually never happens, but the offer remains on the table.
====================
squeekers wrote:
>The claim was made that ALL Catholic doctrines and beliefs were in Scripture. I asked for the verse for the alleged sinlessness of Mary. If it is in the Bible, I want to see it, because having been clear through the entire Bible at least 5 times and the New Testament more than that, I seem to have totally missed it.
Yes, you did, but I don't blame you; we all miss things. Here it is:
Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning
of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)
Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations
"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ135.HTM
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 10.16.05 - 2:08 pm | #
.
You RCs really have to get off this new push to pretend that RC doctrine is found in the Word of God. You never had anything close to the shamelessness required to attempt this before, but you seem to think liberalism and and devil have softened up Protestantism enough for you now to 'just say anything'. Pathetic. Notice liberalism is your friend in this shameless enterprise.
When see the Word of God as only found in the Scriptures, you miss a lot.
Dave,
I agree that scripture is important by default. One could say that God's immutability (or unchangeability...if indeed that's a word
) is important, because it's in scripture. But when discussing with someone who thinks God is changing, I'd say immutability is important, because if God changes He either changes for the better or worse. And if that happens, then either today or yesterday I am/was worshiping an inferior God. But that can't be, so we must acknowledge God is unchanging. You did give a few other reasons for why we should think Mary was a life-long virgin, but none were compelling.
So my question was really getting at: is there scripture that is denied or violated if we don't acknowledge Mary as a perpetual virgin?
I see what you're saying about people possibly denying the virgin birth once she's had other children naturally, but people will deny the virgin birth of Jesus even if Mary didn't have any other children.
Sibling rivalry wouldn't be a problem since Jesus was perfectly loving, helpful, gracious, kind, encouraging, humble, and any other good attribute we can think up towards his potential siblings . It's hard to rival someone who treats you like royalty. Sharing the same womb...not a big deal. We don't remember that anyway .
As one who acknowledges Sola Scriptura, I'm mainly concerned with not violating scripture. So if there's fairly clear scripture that points to Mary being a perpetual virgin, not only do I want to see it, I NEED to see it.
Eric Svendsen on ntrmin.org recently went through another series of his periodic reviews of this topic. While he makes way too many points for me to discuss each one, there is a particular point in part II of his series where he rejects the concept of a married virgin as an "historical novum." I address this comment in my blog at http://esperu.blogspot.com/2005/...cal-
novums.html . Also, In a previous post on my blog, I discuss Eric Svendson focusing on Matt 1:25 without also reading Luke 1:34. That post is at http://esperu.blogspot.com/2004/...ty-of-
mary.html
Cheers,
DelRayVA
>So if there's fairly clear scripture that points to Mary being a perpetual virgin, not only do I want to see it, I NEED to see it.
I reply: I awaite with baited breath for the clear Scripture that says Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus.
There is no such statement in the Bible. Of course if you want to READ INTO the text of the Bible the false human tradition of men of Helvidius we can't stop you.
>So my question was really getting at: is there scripture that is denied or violated if we don't acknowledge Mary as a perpetual virgin?
I reply: Scripture says the "the Older shall serve the younger". Often in Scripture it is the younger sibling that is the recipient of God's Covenant promice. Issac was younger than Ishmael. Ephram younger than Mehnassa. David was the youngest & so was Solomon. Judah was the youngest of Jacob's first wife.
I believe if Jesus had younger brothers that would violate the Biblical pattern since HE was the final recipiant of the Divine Promise.
BTW accept for Tertullian (who was still a heretic) how is it the only ancient "Christians" who denied the perpetual virginity also denied the Trnity & Deity of Christ? Arians, Ebonites, Gnostics and Marcionites all taught the Neo-Protestant Helvidian doctrine. No orthodox Trinitarin did. We don't know what Helvidius taught about the Trinity but we know he WAS the disciple of the Bishop of Milian who at the time was a notorious Arian heretic.
Grubb,
The idea of scripture being denied or violated depends on interpetation. If you want to disbelieve something you just ignore or exegete away and scripture that teaches it. Protestants do that all the time.
The real question is what truths about God are you denying when you choose to disbelieve the perpetual virginity. There are two basic ones that come to my mind. One is the holiness of Jesus. Mary's body was set apart for a holy purpose and therefore could not be used for ordinary purposes. When you deny that you make Jesus more ordinary.
The other truth is to deny the seriousness of having a baby with a woman. God wants us to take procreation so seriously he wants a lifetime commitment that involves forsaking sexual relations with others. If God procreated with Mary and she simply went on to have sex and possibly procreate with someone else that really cheapens the entire event. It effects how we look at procreation. Physically it is about one night but spiritually it is a timeless bind we forge.
Ben,
Matt 12:46-50 says (I know you know this already), "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.' He replied to him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'"
You might think I'm reading into this passage that Jesus' mother and brothers wanted to talk to him, but it seems a much more logical conclusion to say he had brothers than to say he didn't have brothers after reading this.
Regarding the older serving the younger, that is a specific instance where God is mandating it not a general rule, and Paul points out in Romans 9 that it was done to demonstrate "God's purpose in election" and to show that the "elect" are not the "elect" based on works, nationality, or birth order. While there are instances of the younger rising above the older, the pattern of the Bible is for the older to rise to the top.
Randy,
If you want to disbelieve something you just ignore or exegete away any scripture that teaches it. It's not the Protestants trying to exegete away Matt 12:46-50.
Your ideas regarding Mary's body being for a noble purpose and only having one sexual partner aren't without merit, but I don't believe they're without flaw either. Having children is a noble thing, so Mary having more wouldn't have negated or cheapened the nobility of having Jesus.
Also, to take your thought on only having one sexual partner to its logical conclusion, why did Mary get married at all? In Mary's day (in our day too for that matter), a marriage was generally consummated (sp?) with sex. The reason we don't consider Mary married to God is that the seed was merely planted in her, so having sex with Joseph wouldn't have been unfaithful. And Joseph was told not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife which would have led to the marriage being consummated.
.
>You might think I'm reading into this passage that Jesus' mother and brothers wanted to talk to him, but it seems a much more logical conclusion to say he had brothers than to say he didn't have brothers after reading this.
I reply: So when the Gospel of John speaks of Mary having a "sister" named Mary the Wife of Clophas I'm supposed to believe we have the first century version of the BOB NEWHART show? "Hi my name's Larry this my Sister Mary & this is my OTHER sister Mary"! So the BVM's parents had two daughters with the same name?
Why not just admit the NT DOES NOT
consistantly use the words Brother & Sister to mean "Children of one or more of the same parents". Especially since NOWHERE does the Bible EVER call these "Brothers & Sisters" of Jesus either Sons or Daughters of Mary & Joseph.
>Regarding the older serving the younger, that is a specific instance where God is mandating it not a general rule,
I reply: You will set aside the Bible when it contradicts the human tradition of Helvidious.
>and Paul points out in Romans 9 that it was done to demonstrate "God's purpose in election" and to show that the "elect" are not the "elect" based on works, nationality, or birth order.
I reply: I guess that means Jesus didn't have to be a Jew or a Son of David......
>While there are instances of the younger rising above the older, the pattern of the Bible is for the older to rise to the top.
I reply: Not in regards to the coming of the Messiah or the heirs to the Messianic Kingship.
Of course the NT DOES expicitly say Joseph didn't have sex with Mary while she was pregnant. Why? Dr. Sippo once asked an Orthodox Rabbi if Jewish Law forbade sex with your pregnant wife. He was told a Jewish man MAY have sex with his pregnant wife. So WHY did Joseph refran from what the Torah allowed him to do? Maybe he realized Mary WAS NOT an ordinary wife who should be treated in the ordinary fasion.
Last one was me.
Grubb,
Matt 12:46-50 has been exegeted the same way long before Protestants arrived. The perpetual virginity doctrine would never have been accepted if it clearly contradicted scripture. So a strong consensus of christians for many generations did not see that in this text. It is a hard text but that gives me comfort that the interpetation was not forced onto it after the doctrine was defined.
Having children is a noble thing but having ordinary children is not nearly as sacred as giving birth to the devine. The idea of holy things being set apart for special use is biblical. Most protestants don't get it. I know I didn't until I was Catholic. I was taught that everything is holy. But how can everything be set apart?
Why did Mary get married at all? You assume Mary and Joseph did not have a prior understanding that their marriage would not involve sex. That is really begging the question. A marriage would allow Mary to have someone to speak for her. In a patriarchal society without an adult male she would have no status and no provider. There was good reason for a consecrated virgin to want such a marriage.
that and the fact that we are looking at engagement/marriage thru a modern lens. in 1st palestine, ENGAGEMENT between husbands and wives to-be was enough to consummate a partnership ("jesus and his times," daniel-rops), which is why it would have taken joseph "exposing her to the law" to have her stoned...stoned as an ADULTERESS, even though they were only 'engaged.' so, if i'm an engaged woman within what was customary to consummate my marriage, and an angel comes to me saying i am to conceive a son, WHY shouldn't i assume that it will be whenever my fiance/husband and i come together UNLESS i've decided this 'marriage' is not going to be traditional? WHY would i say, "how can this be?" if i fully INTEND to consummate my engagement/marriage shortly?
Why do modern Evangelical Protestants fight so hard to defend the heresy of Helvidious? Their ancestors the Reformers held the ancient view held by all orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Why not them?
Jim, because many Protestants are unaware of their history. Plus, when people have been raised in a certain tradition, it becomes a part of their identity. Therefore, for them to give up their strongly held beliefs, would be like losing part of themselves.
Here is the section on perpetual virginity of Mary from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. I woin't bother doing the many italics and the footnotes, etc.:
Definition: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Pope Paul IV, in his Constitution, Cum Quorumdam Hominum of 1555, expressed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church concerning both the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and the perpetual virginity of Mary:
". . . We question and admonish all those who . . . have asserted, taught and believed . . . that our Lord . . . was not conceived from the Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin but, as other men, from the seed of Joseph; . . . or that the same Blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the mother of God and did not retain her virginity intact before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth."
Scriptural Evidence: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Greek word for "brother" in the New Testament is adelphos. The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, defines it as follows:
"Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of: 1) male children of the same parents . . .; 2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5; . . .4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3 . . .; 5) any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3; 6) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47; 7) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9; 
mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17; 9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17; 10) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word 'sisters' is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2) . . ."
It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus' "brothers" need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned, seem to assume uncritically. By examining the use of adelphos and related words in Hebrew, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture ("exegesis"), one can determine the most sensible explanation of all the biblical data taken collectively. Many examples prove that adelphos has a very wide variety of meanings:
1) In the King James Version, Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:15 / 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Genesis 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses "kinsman" at 29:15 and 14:14.
2) Use of "brother" or "brethren" for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7, 2 Samuel 1:26, 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32, 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jeremiah 34:9, Amos 1:9.
3) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for "cousin." Although the New Testament was written in Greek, whi
Ben,
Why not just admit the NT DOES NOT consistently use the words Brother & Sister to mean "Children of one or more of the same parents.
I will gladly concede that point, but don't you agree that sometimes it does? It may never say outright that Joseph & Mary had other children, but it also doesn't say outright that they didn't or that Mary was a perpetual virgin, right? Actually, if we understand it to be Mary who is wanting to talk to Jesus in Matt 12, then it would say explicitly that she had other children.
>Regarding the older serving the younger, that is a specific instance where God is mandating it not a general rule,
I reply: You will set aside the Bible when it contradicts the human tradition of Helvidious.
How am I setting aside the Bible by acknowledging that God was referring to a specific instance rather than mandating a general application?
Here's my attempted objective analysis. There's one passage in the Bible that clearly indicates Jesus had siblings. Since "mothers" and "brothers" didn't always mean literal parent and siblings, this passage may not mean what it appears to mean. Aside from this passage, there are no passages that specifically acknowledge Jesus as having or not having siblings. Any other passage used must be inferred to mean either Mary did or didn't have other children.
If I've missed something let me know (I'm not being facetious when I say that); but in light of that analysis, it seems that the most logical choice would be that Matt 12:46-50 is literal and that Mary had other children.
I don't think either of us is committing heresy by having our respective views. If you do, I'd be interested to know why. I believe heresy is a violation of a major doctrine like the Trinity.
.
(cont.)
. . . which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English "brother." But even in English, "brother" has multiple meanings as well.
Moving on to more direct biblical evidences of the perpetual virginity of Mary, we discover the following facts:
1) In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees He was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the "literal brothers" theory.
2) Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the "crowds" and His "disciples" (23:1) "brethren." In other words, they are each other's "brothers" (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 He calls His disciples and all who do the will of His Father "my brothers."
3) By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph -- mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brothers" -- are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn't likely that there were two women named "Mary" in one family -- thus even this usage apparently means "cousin" or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure at least James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these "brothers" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term "brother" is not determinative in and of itself.
4) "First-born": the utilization of this term in order to assert that Mary had "second-borns" and "third-borns" proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek prototokos is "preeminent". To illustrate: David is described by God as the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth (Psalm 89:27). Likewise, God refers to Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exodus 4:22) as "my first-born." Jesus is called the the first-born of all creation in Colossians 1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that He was preeminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "first-born". Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, 48:12; cf. Revelation 1:8, 21:6-7). Christians are called "the first-born" in Hebrews 12:23. Literally speaking, however, among the Jews, th
(cont.)
. . . the "first-born" was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (Exodus 13:2), whether there were other children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matthew 1:25, in which case hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all, contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.
5) Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely wouldn't have done this if He had brothers (who would all have been younger than He was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary's perpetual virginity.
6) Catholics believe that Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Messiah, at the Annunciation, How can this be, since I have no husband? (Luke 1:34), indicates a prior vow of perpetual virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4,4), wrote: "Surely, she would not say, 'How shall this be?' unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn't have asked this question!"
These conclusions are not merely the result of "Catholic bias" and special pleading, as many charge. For example, the prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, comments on Matthew 13:55:
"An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these "brethren" and "sisters" to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties."
Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son . . .
This verse has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant source also comments:
The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before."
[Footnote: Romans 8:22, 1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Revelation 2:25 furnis
(cont.)
. . . furnish four further examples of a similar meaning of "until."]
John Calvin used this very argument to establish the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly Protestants (such as John Wesley). No one had ever denied this doctrine until the late 4th century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus' supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which "higher criticism" has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.
Hi Grubb,
If you are basing your case on the use of the word translated "brothers" in English (adelphos) then it is exceedingly weak on linguistic grounds alone, and virtually refuted by cross-referencing, as shown above.
Beyond that, you are operating on this principle of sola Scriptura, which holds (generally-speaking) that everything should be explicit in the Bible. But where is that principle itself taught in Scripture?
In other words, we are not self-contradictory in believing a strong Tradition which was the consensus until 100-200 years or so ago, among all Christians, and which has significant implicit scriptural support.
But you are quite inconsistent to believe a purported biblical principle which in fact has no biblical support at all; then making that the basis upon which you will judge all doctrine, and then denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. You use the non-biblical (even anti-biblical) man-made tradition of sola Scriptura to deny that which has more biblical indication than your principle does: by which you judge ALL doctrine.
Question for all: I've just spent about 45 minutes trying to find the discussion I had with Ken Temple about St. Athanasius and sola Scriptura. It was going on a few weeks ago, then Ken said he had to go away for a week. It's in the comments section.
Does anyone remember what post it was under? Are you out there Ken? Do you remember? I'd like to post this as a regular paper.
I am here, but really busy and I will be out for a whole month soon. After this 2 or 3 posts, I will not be able to inteact until from Nov. 1 until 20. Obviously, from not many comments recently, I have not been able to interact much for now.
As to our discussion on Athanasius and SS -- Good question Dave. When I go to your archives, and click on September, the lastest it gives me is September 12 -- our discussion on Athanasius and Sola Scriptura was under your post about Mark Noll and his book "Is the Reformation Over?" (I think).
Sincerely,
Ken T.
Not beleiving in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is based on clear Scripture. The focus of Matthew and Luke is to be on Jesus. All of the emphasis on PVM takes away from the focus on Chirst and author's intention. The honor and hyper-dulia and prayers to Mary developed later in history take glory and concentration and emphasis and focus and even worship away from Christ. ( Although, I understand doctrinally and officially, the RCC clearly says, "We do NOT worship Mary." and "Adoration is for God alone".) But, the over- emphasis on Mary began with this doctrine.
This doctrine along with a wrong emphasis on "Mother of God" ( rather than on the Deity of Christ, which is the only reason for calling Mary, the Mother of God, or Theotokos, "God bearer", was to say that Jesus from conception was 100% God and 100% man), shifted the focus away from Christ more toward His human mother, who was a great and godly woman.
It does not matter if Tertullian was a heretic because of Montanism and it does not matter if Helvidius was wrong in other areas of clear Scripture. Ireneaus did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and none of the other earliest fathers did. The first mention, besides the Gnostic writings Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah and Apocryphal Proto-evangelium of James is Origen (d. 254 AD), right? The first mention that the "brothers and sisters of the Lord" is from an alleged Joseph's previous marriage is Ephiphanius (376-377 AD).
It is only with Jerome and Augustine that this doctrine really takes off. (350-430s, roughly) Athanasius mentions "Ever-Virgin" one time outside of his questionable work "On Virginity". This work is not in the standard works of Athanasius and it is possible that even the little suffix word, "ever" is later interpolations written back into the text. ( I wrote about this in previous posts.)
Psalm 69:8 is very persuasive that this is also about Messiah, because so much of this Pslam is Messiaic. "I have become estranged from my brothers, And an alien to my mother's sons." Psalm 69:4 is about Jesus -- Jesus quotes it in John 15:25. Psalm 69:9a is quoted by John in John 2:17 about Messiah. John 2:12 says His mother, and brothers, and disciples were there with Him. Matthew and Luke and Mark knew and wrote Greek. They could have used "sungenis" ( kinsmen) or the word for cousin in Colossians 4:10 if the "brothers and sisters" were cousins. (anepsios)
Psalm 69, Verse 9b is in Roman 15:3 about Christ. Also Pslam 69:21 is a prophecy of Christ fulfilled on the cross -- Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:23, Luke 23:36, and John 19:28-30 "They gave Me gall for my food, and for my thirst vinegar to drink." Only verse 5 in Pslam 69 about my folly and my wrong is not about Jesus, because there are other clear verses on His sinlessness.
Matthew 1:18, 25 and Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 12:46-50 and 13:55-58 are all much clearer than the Jerome/Augustine view on this issue. It is just too clear that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born, so there is no danger to the Virgin conception of Christ -- showing that He is the Son of God and God the Son.
When someone talks about God the Father "procreating with Mary", and that this is the reason why that special relationship should be kept special and therefore Joseph and her did not have sex, it makes it seem like the "Spouse of the Spirit" language and that it was more than a Spiritual thing. "The Power of the Most high will overshadow you and the Holy Spirit will come upon you." Clearly, the main purpose is to show us that Jesus is the Son of God, God the Son; and that He was the perfect God-man, come to save us from our sins.
All of the RCC dogmas and emphasis on Mary are un-biblical and take away from glory and honor and worship to the Tri-une God alone. Muslims and others think we believe like the Mormons because of these bad and unbiblical emphases. Mohammed clearly got the wrong impression, because in the Quran, 5:110, 116 and other places he writes that Jesus says, "I did not say take my mother and me as 2 gods besides Allah". The statues and prayers and exalting Mary too much are just not good, no matter how careful and qualified you get with trying to explain the doctrine.
The PVM doctrine gives the impression that sex is dirty, even though you say not. Jerome and Augustine and Clement of Alexandria do give that impression. Origen castrated himself. This doctrine has made many cradle catholics go down the road to rejecting other good doctrinres ( like the virgin birth and Deity of Christ adn resurrection, etc.), because this doctrine is a tradition of man and an addition and a corruption of Scripture. It is a dogma forced upon the masses by decree of authority -- Lording it over the flock and leads to skepticism in other good doctrines. Anyway, got to go for now.
some more comments on this:
Dave,
You mention lots of verses talking about "brothers" meaning "brothers in Christ" or just generally other humans, with common interest; but in several contexts, the context makes it clear that the writers of Scripture are referring to Jesus' real flesh and blood brothers ( half-brothers, since Jesus had no human father).
John 2:12-22 is instructive. In verse 12, it says "His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples" are there, thus distinguishing between "brothers" in the flesh, and spiritual brothers . Here "His brothers" cannot mean, "brothers in Christ". The references to Psalm 69 ( Zeal for Thy house has consumed Me) and unbelief ( after Jesus rose from the dead, His disciples remembered the Scripture, His words and the event; "and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken." John 2:22) clearly allude to the passage about being astranged "from my MOTHER's sons" ( Psalm 68: The context of John 7:5 also greatly enhances this understanding.
It cannot mean cousins either because he could have used the Greek word for cousin here, as shown by its use in Colossians 4:10 "anepsios". It cannot mean "relative" , because he could have easily used the word that Luke uses for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36. (sungenis)
Also, in Matthew 12:46 ff and the parallels in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21, they are putting "mother and brothers" and "sisters" in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, it is obvious that by putting Mary His mother together with brothers and sisters, all the writers mean real, physical mothers and brothers, because later Jesus' point about spiritual brothers and sisters and spiritual mothers are the ones who do the will of God and obey the Father's will, shows He is saying, "yes, they are my real Mother, and brothers, and sisters, PHYSICALLY"; but if they do not believe in Me or do the will of My Father, the physical relationship is not as important as the spiritual one.
Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" 3:21:10 clearly implies that Mary was only a virgin until after Jesus was born. "as yet a virgin". Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by manking. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin." ( Jason Engwer, Irenaeus on Perpetural Virginity, "Catholic but not Roman Catholic", which Dave is familiar with and has written about, but not convincing. Jason E. and E. Svendsen have much, much more evidence and logic and "common sense" on this and many other issues.
Ireneaus also implies that "before they came together" means that they had a normal sexual marriage after Jesus was born. ( Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Hegesippus also writes, "Jude, the Lord's brother according to the flesh" in Eusebius' Church History 3:20. In 4:22, he uses the word "cousin" for a Symeon, clearly showing he understood the difference between brother and cousin. According to the Roman Catholic website, the New Advent Encyclopedia, Hegesipus is an early writer, from the Second Century. That means, between 100 – 200 AD. Pretty early. “A writer of the second century, known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius, who tells us that he wrote in five books in the simplest style the true tradition of the Apostolic preaching. His work was entitled hypomnemata (Memoirs), and was written against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion.” The weight of early history and Biblical exegesis is against you.
Basil, also writes, that Mary had doubts, and sinned ( Letter 260:6, 260:9) and that many believed that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Joseph and Mary had a normal sexual relationship after Jesus was born. J.N.Kelly writes that Basil, ". . . implied that such a view was widely held and though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy." ( Hom. in sanctam Christi gen. ( PG 31, 1468 f.) in "Early Christian Doctrines, p. 495).
The weight of the plain meaning of the Bible in Greek is clear. The best and earliest church fathers did not mention the PVM or they actually spoke against it. ( Ireneaus 120/130-200 AD), Tertullian ( 160-220 AD), Hegesippus 150-200 ?) , Basil (329-379) are stronger witnesses than Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, who came later, and Origen, who castrated himself ( died, 254 AD) and Clement of Alexandria, who was quite negative against marriage and sex at all, even in marriage.
Ken,
You say that the PVM "takes away from the focus on Chirst". How do you know that? I assumed that when I was protestant but as a Catholic I don't find it to be the case. How much attention to Mary is too much? How do we know we are not paying her too little respect? Is that not also a danger?
I find that all the thinking on Mary has given the church a much clearer picture of who Jesus is and how we can be close to Him. Nobody is saying that Mary is interesting in her own right. She is only talked about because she is the mother of Jesus. How can any honor paid to her detract from the honor we give to Jesus? If I say that your mother must have done a great job raising you does that detract from my opinion of you?
I am amazed at how frequently people bring up Psalm 69. When making connections with the old testament it is common to have some lines that don't fit. Why is it a big deal here?
The negative attitude towards sex is also an assumption. The Catholic church has been accused of this over many differant doctrines. The truth is that a high view of virginity implies a high view of sex. Mary gave up something good to get something better. It comes back to the notion of sacrifice. It is there in priestly celibacy. It is there in natural family planning. So many protestants want to take the notion of sacrifice out of the Christian faith. It is wishful thinking.
Yeah. What Ken said. But seriously, Ken addressed most of the questions you guys posed to me. Thanks Ken. I, for one, will miss you.
Dave,
I see, based on your and the RCC's understanding of what Scripture says, why you believe Mary was a perpetual virgin. You claimed there is "significant implicit scriptural support". Dictionary.com lists "implicit" as: 1) Implied or understood though not directly expressed, 2) n/a, 3) Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning. I presume you're using definition 1 for implicit. If not, I have to disagree.
Ken points out that Mary's perpetual virginity wasn't espoused until approximately 264 AD. When and why did CHRISTmas (I write it that way to make sure the emphasis of CHRISTmas is on Christ) and Easter start? I believe both were forms of merging a Christian event and a pagan holiday. I'm sure one of you guys knows the exact specifics. I bring this up for a reason.
I'm not saying anyone now worships the pagan god associated with those holidays, but my point is that at some point the RCC merged a Christian event with a pagan holiday. This gives me cause for alarm. It also is one of the reasons I hold to Sola Scriptura. If the birth and resurrection of our Lord was merged with a pagan holiday, how much verbal tradition taught by the Apostles was merged with pagan ideas or events? I believe Scripture has been preserved, but I can't be sure that verbal traditions have been.
And if the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity didn't really emerge until 264ish, could it be a pagan idea merged with a Christian "event" (a.k.a. Mary's life)?
I'm 100% sincere when I ask this and not at all trying to be antagonistic. I believe what the Scripture says, and if it says Mary was a perpetual virgin, I'll trust it and yell it from the highest roof top. Conversely, if this is a man-made idea that someone has found scripture that sort of supports it, I want nothing to do with it. Don't you guys agree?
In your eyes, is it heresy not to believe this doctrine?
.
I find it ironic that PVM poo-pooers resort to the Boettneresque idea that certain Catholic teachings popped out of nowhere in later years want to make an exception for Sola Scriptura whilst, and at the same time, want to distance themselves from SolO Scriptura and insist intelligent Catholics don't know the difference. To wit: The decision that the PVM is a Catholic-corrupted innovation that appears ex nihilo in 264, while Sola Scriptura is a legitimate tradition from the beginning that develops until becoming explicit in the 1500 is purely arbitrary.
Scott
I think Easter goes back to the very beginnings of the church. The resurection happened on the Jewish passover feast and the early church changed that feas t accordingly.
Christmas did not come until later. It is not on early liturgical calanders. It was the contemplation of Mary that led the church to see the importance of the incarnation. They began to see that the gospel story did not begin with the baptism of Jesus but in fact with the birth of Jesus (even before that there was the conception and Mary's life of purity but the birth was a big deal). So Christmas is really one fruit of Marian devotion.
Your question about creeping paganism is much deeper than you think. It requires a special grace to keep the gospel intact even when you have the scriptures. Protestants are just as prone to having other idea creep in. If God didn't protect the Catholic church from this then the gospel would be lost many centuries ago.
Scott,
Notice that I didn't claim the verbal traditions passed from the Apostles to the next generation and so on were to be ignored or initially corrupted. Obviously the early church couldn't adhere to sola scriptura, as the Bible hadn't been canonized yet. Tradition was as good or better than an uncompiled Bible, because it was all they had. But as you pointed out, I believe the idea of sola scriptura has been around since John wrote his Gospel.
But don't you agree that it's POSSIBLE for some Christian ideas to have been blended with other world view ideas? And isn't it POSSIBLE that Mary being a perpetual virgin is one of them? I'm not saying probable or likely, just possible.
Randy,
"How much attention to Mary is too much? How do we know we are not paying her too little respect? Is that not also a danger?"
John the Baptist said, "He must become greater; I must become less." I'm sure Mary would agree. Another way of saying that is: focus on the savior, take your focus off of me.
How much attention do we pay to Joseph? Why so little? It's true he didn't carry Jesus inside him, BUT he was charged with teaching and training the Savior of the world. He was the guy who God chose to model faith for Jesus. That's pretty respect worthy, yet Joseph isn't nearly as lauded as Mary is.
Do either of you think it's heresy if someone doesn't believe this doctrine?
Notice that I didn't claim the verbal traditions passed from the Apostles to the next generation and so on were to be ignored or initially corrupted.
Fine. But this goes directly to my point. It is assuming what needs to be proven: That Sola Scriptura is the legitinmate tradition to which all others must bow.
Obviously the early church couldn't adhere to sola scriptura, as the Bible hadn't been canonized yet. Tradition was as good or better than an uncompiled Bible, because it was all they had. But as you pointed out, I believe the idea of sola scriptura has been around since John wrote his Gospel.
This is the Scripture Swallows Tradition argument. An argument supported by neither.
But don't you agree that it's POSSIBLE for some Christian ideas to have been blended with other world view ideas? And isn't it POSSIBLE that Mary being a perpetual virgin is one of them? I'm not saying probable or likely, just possible.
This is special pleading. The Catholic must provide lab-science proof for any of its teachings, meanwhile the opponent need only throw out possible alternatives (even improbable ones by your admission) to invalidate it. I see no reason to humor this.
Scott
I realize I'm a little late, but I'm curious what is the necessity of proclaiming that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? I realize that some are coming to this from the idea of why should they believe that she was a virgin. I suppose one could make an appeal that it is true and there is no significance. I don't see why I should rid myself of my beliefs based on that proposition.
Finally, there are many seemingly obvious things we should know from that time period that we do not. What color was Jesus's hair? I've only seen speculation on this matter. And if Jesus did indeed have brothers, why do we not have any evidences outside the gnostic gospels of his nephews and neices or great nephews and great neices? You would think that these would be valued for their testimonial value to pagans, let alone being cited as a condition for ecclesial or state office.
And if Jesus did indeed have brothers, why do we not have any evidences outside the gnostic gospels of his nephews and neices or great nephews and great neices?
Especially since we have explicit Scripture showing that two of those listed as brothers are not in uterine brothers. Technically, we would only need one example and the teaching will stand. That is, it is not enough for the opponents to speculate and throw out possibilities--the burden is on them to produce actual evidence of a full blood brother through Mary.
Reminds me of The Simpsons when Homer is arguing with Marge: "It's uterUS. Not uterYOU."
Scott
Randy,
I agree completely that no church or sect is immune to paganism creeping in and that God used the RCC mightily to maintain the Scriptures. I also acknowledge that it's possible that none of the traditions were corrupted if God chose to protect them as well. But I'm not so sure He did protect them.
We see that the pagan holiday Saturnalia (who's origin is the ancient sun-god Mithra's birthday) AND it's gift giving traditions were merged with celebrating our Lord's birthday. This is from http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
And from http://www.christiananswers.net/...n/edn-
t020.html
it says, "The name 'Easter' has its roots in ancient polytheistic religions (paganism). On this, all scholars agree. ... 'Easter' is simply one of the names of a woman who mightily deceived the world and whose religion has caused untold suffering and misery. She was clearly an enemy of Christianity, and her son Tammuz was an anti-Christ, a false messiah that ultimately deceived millions."
Everything on the internet isn't fact, but tons of sites (I've only read a couple) convey that Jesus' birth and resurrection were merged with pagan holidays. If the two most important events the world has ever known since the fall of man have been "compromised", isn't it possible that some other pagan traditions were merged with true Christianity?
If pagan practices were merged with CHRISTmas and Easter, why is it so implausible that Mary's virgin birth and her perpetual virginity could have been merged in 264?
If pagan practices were merged with CHRISTmas and Easter, why is it so implausible that Mary's virgin birth and her perpetual virginity could have been merged in 264?
Because we need actual evidence to entertain such a thing. Since none has been offered, this is little better than suggesting that because we are not sure how the pyramids were built, then extraterrestrials built them.
Scott
Grubb,
What does compromised mean? The name Easter has been used for bad purposes. Does that mean we should write off the whole feast? Christianity is about transforming culture not replacing culture. So we can take something from a sinful culture and baptize it. Sure you need to be careful not to bring any negative spiritual baggage but I trust the church to be careful about such things.
Trusting the church is key. If you don't do that then anything could be corrupted. The point is that tradition and the scriptures were protected by God through the same church. Why trust them on one score and not on the other? Our tendancy is to trust what we know. The tradition we were raised in. We need to trust something. Why not trust the church Jesus established rather than the one you happened to be in? We weren't there. We will never know unless God reveals it too us.
Grubb,
I meant to take you up over the implied vow of virginity in Luke. Ben did a good job rebuting your inital objection. You came back with the fact that you reckon Mary understood the angel in the immediate future. Aside the fact there is no evidence for that, it is bowled over by the fact that when you are engaged your marriage... is in the immediate future! In fact all that was yet to happen was Joseph had to take Mary into his home. Wouldn't they have just got on with it quicker to hasten the coming of what the angel had predicted!
Another Old Testament type of Mary is the gate of Ezekiel. The gate is sealed and no one is allowed to pass through it except for one person: the prince of Israel (Christ). Ez 44:1-3 (when Ezekiel has a vision of the heavenly Jeusalem)
Maybe you will respond again with something like "I'm not sure if I would compare Mary to the gate of Ezekial" like you did with the ark. Making it all subjective; about what "I would do" - as if it had the least relevance! Maybe your not into Biblical typology because it confirms Catholic Doctrine
Life's short Grubb. Come back home.
Let' answer some of Ken errors.
>It does not matter if Tertullian was a heretic because of Montanism and it does not matter if Helvidius was wrong in other areas of clear Scripture.
I reply: The point is NOT ONE Orthodox Trinitarian Christian (with the exception of Tertullian the Montanist) taught the Helvidian heresy.
>Ireneaus did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and none of the other earliest fathers did.
I reply: The burden off proof is for Ken to show us Ireneaus denied the PVM. He didn't based on his criteria Ireneaus did not believe in the Divine Inspiration of the Book of Revelation either. Since he never quotes it.
> The first mention, besides the Gnostic writings Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah and Apocryphal Proto-evangelium of James is Origen (d. 254 AD), right?
I reply: I'm afraid none of these writings are clearly gnostic but are Jewish Christian.
>The first mention that the "brothers and sisters of the Lord" is from an alleged Joseph's previous marriage is Ephiphanius (376-377 AD).
I reply: Which would be meaningful to the discussion if the Catholic Church dogmatically taught the PV of Joseph. Which it doesn't. It is possible to hold the view of Ephipanius within Catholic Orthodoxy.
Stick to the defined dogmas Ken old friend. Cheers.
Hegesippus also writes, "Jude, the Lord's brother according to the flesh" in Eusebius'
I reply: "According to the flesh"merely means they are related. Not that they had any parents in common.
>Church History 3:20. In 4:22, he uses the word "cousin" for a Symeon, clearly showing he understood the difference between brother and cousin.
I reply: Yet Jude, James and Symon are a generically refered too as "Brothers" and are all lumped together. Why didn't the gospel auther make distictions between biological bothers & cousins? Maybe because Ken's unporven assumption the Gospel writer would always write perspicuouly isn't true.
Also if we believe Hegesippus both James & Symon wherer OT Priests. How can two people from the tribe of Judah sire children from the tribe of Levi?
BTW.
> The first mention, besides the Gnostic writings Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah and Apocryphal Proto-evangelium of James is Origen (d. 254 AD), right?
I reply: These are Second century writings not 3rd century. Thus the PVM goes back to the second century. I don't know where you get these dates from.
One thing you need to do is cut throught the manuca & get to the heart of the PVM dogma. The Catholic Church dogmatically demands we believe in the PVM. Not in the virginity of Joseph or the general belief Mary took a vow of virginity. The later views are genrally held in the western Church they are not dogmas (thought I personally believe them). So confusing the arguments with needless tangents is not helpful.
Come now Ken your better than that because you are a Contra-Catholic & not an Anti-Catholic. Plus many of Ken's arguments are non-sequters. I will go into more debth.
First let me deal with Ken misreadings of the Church Fathers. Now that I have time to compose my thoughts.
>Basil, also writes, that Mary had doubts, and sinned ( Letter 260:6, 260:9)
I reply: Off topic. Beside Ludwigg Von Ott admits this. The Sinlessness of Mary is taught by a Majority of Fathers but not unanimously like the PVM. Thus the Church has to make the call on that one & She did even though 16th century rebels deny the authority of Christ's Church over the individual.
(Tertullian doesn't count as a Father since he became a heretic).
>and that many believed that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Joseph and Mary had a normal sexual relationship
I reply: Yes & we called those people Ebonites, Arians and in general heretics.
>after Jesus was born. J.N.Kelly writes that Basil, ". . . implied that such a view was widely held and though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy." ( Hom. in sanctam Christi gen. ( PG 31, 1468 f.) in "Early Christian Doctrines, p. 495).
I reply: I read the quote
actually after commenting on Matt 1:24
Basil said it could (not that it did) suggest Mary had Sex after the birth of Jesus & that this would have no effect the Incarnation by the Holy Spirit but then he imediatly went on to say "But since the lovers of Christ (the faithful) do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony to be sufficient." So I don't buy Kelly's analysis here.
Now on to Ireneaus.
>>Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" 3:21:10 clearly implies that Mary was only a virgin until after Jesus was born. etc....
I reply: Here is the quote "For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground" ), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.END QUOTE
Your interpretation of the above is dubious. Nothing in the above text indicates Ireneaus believed some kind of proto-helvidianism. If this is your best early patristic “evidence” it’s beyond weak.
>The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin." ( Jason Engwer, Irenaeus on Perpetural Virginity, "Catholic but not Roman Catholic", which Dave is familiar with and has written about, but not convincing. Jason E. and E. Svendsen have much, much more evidence and logic and "common sense" on this and many other issues.
I reply: I don’t see it. I see a lot of wishful thinking, special pleading, red herings & the like but little if any common sense.
>Ireneaus also implies that "before they came together" means that they had a normal sexual marriage after Jesus was born. ( Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
I reply: This begs the question. Does “came together” mean have sex or does it mean live together?
Now to deal with the misreading of Hegesippus.
>Hegesippus also writes, "Jude, the Lord's brother according to the flesh" in Eusebius' Church History 3:20. In 4:22, he uses the word "cousin" for a Symeon, clearly showing he understood the difference between brother and cousin.
I reply: Papus who was a Jewish Christian like Hegesippus & lived before him wrote “(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.” End Quote
Papas learned Christianity from persons who KNEW the Apostle directly (can Calvin or the other Reforms make that boast?). Even Ireneaus said Papus heard the preaching of John the Apostle well according to Papas, the “Brothers” mentioned in Matt 13:55 & in Hegesippus DO NOT have the BVM as their biological Mother but other women.
As for Hegesippus let us quote him directly “There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.”
I reply: I guess it depends on the English translation you use. But if Judas was the biological Son of Our Lord’s aunt as Papas (who is a little earlier than Hegesippus or at least contemporary) tells us then it would not be incorrect in the semitic sense to say of him “according to the flesh was called his brother”.
Besides maybe Ken can explain to us how James can be the blood brother of Jesus & Symon (Matt 13:55) & yet Symon is Our Lord Cousin according to Hegesippus? How is that possible?
If one accepts the ancient Catholic teaching James & Symon are Blood brothers & James is only "Brother" to Jesus in the generic semitic sense not the literal sense then it works. However if one clings to the heterodox Helvidian lie of the disciple of the Arian Bishop of Milan then there is trouble.
Since I can't figure out a way I could share a brother with my cousin without incest being involved.
>The weight of the plain meaning of the Bible in Greek is clear.
I reply: It's clear the "Brothers" of Jesus who are named in Matt 13:55 are not any of them the biological Children of the BVM. See this article
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
02767a.htm
>The best and earliest church fathers did not mention the PVM or they actually spoke against it.
I reply: As I have shown this is baloney.
Ireneaus 120/130-200 AD),
I reply: Your case for proto-Helvidianism in Ireneaus is based on an argument of special pleading revolving around three words "as yet a virgin" based on the English translation.
>Tertullian ( 160-220 AD),
I reply: The only Trinitaran (yet a Montanist heretic) early Christian writer to agree with this heresy.
Hegesippus 150-200 ?)
I reply: Apart from the evidence I provided from Papas to properly interpret Hegesippus & show clearly he can't be impressed into service for the neo-Helvidians. If you read all of Hegesippus it is clear James & Symon served as Old Testament Priests in the Temple. Well Old Testament Priests must according to the Torah come from the Tribe of Levi & decent from Aaron. How can Joseph & Mary both from the Tribe of Judah biologically sire Levites? THAT would be a greater mircle than the Virgin birth!
It would be like if me being Scotish/Italian & my Wife being 100% Italian started pumping out Chinese babies!
Basil (329-379)
I reply: He Believed in the PVM he just commented if Mary had Sex after it wouldn't undo the incarnation. Misrepresenting him is not impressive.
>are stronger witnesses than Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, who came later, and Origen, who castrated himself ( died, 254 AD) and Clement of Alexandria, who was quite negative against marriage and sex at all, even in marriage.
I reply: You really think the Helvidians at the time had an enlightened & healthy view of sex? Such Nievtay. EVERYBODY back then had a defective view of Sex. But Thomas Aquanus's view was WAY better than Augustine & John Paul even better. It's called development of doctrine.
God love ya Ken. You know it's not personal.
Forgot to address this quote of Ireneaus
>Ireneaus also implies that "before they came together" means that they had a normal sexual marriage after Jesus was born. ( Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
I reply: Let us read the quote & se for ourselves.QUOTE "For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;" and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child." But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: "And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good." Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] "before He knows good and evil;" for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good," -- this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh."END QUOTE
I reply: At best it implies (& that is still streching it) Mary made no vow of perpetual virginity however it neather says nor implies She EVER had sex after Jesus was born. So this is another Red Herring.
Scott,
This is special pleading. The Catholic must provide lab-science proof for any of its teachings, meanwhile the opponent need only throw out possible alternatives (even improbable ones by your admission) to invalidate it. I see no reason to humor this.
Actually, I think it's very possible and probable. When I said "I'm not saying probable", I was speaking from your perspective. This isn't special pleading, and I'm not asking for lab-science proof; I'm merely trying to point out one way this doctrine could have come about and used a couple of well known examples to make my point.
There are passages that each side must look at and say either, "It doesn't really mean this, it means that" or "I'm not sure why it says it that way", and I acknowledge that. But it doesn't appear that you're willing to acknowledge such a position.
Randy,
The point is that tradition and the scriptures were protected by God through the same church. Why trust them on one score and not on the other?
Good point. Here's why. The scriptures were written and many copies made and verifiable. And then other texts have been found that can verify those protected by the RCC. But traditions (especially verbal ones) could much more easily be tampered with and added to. And even the traditions of CHRISTmas and Easter appear to have been tampered with or blended with culture.
Christianity is about transforming culture not replacing culture.
But it doesn't appear we've transformed culture when we adopt it's practices. I believe the biggest hindrance to celebrating Jesus' birth with a God-honoring heart is the gift giving custom we adopted with the pagan holiday of Saturnalia (or whatever it was). We've made CHRISTmas all about presents, when the birth of our Savior should be the main point. If you think I'm being extreme in my statement, try this over the next two CHRISTmases: one year don't mention anything about the birth of Jesus and what it means, and the next year don't buy anyone presents, and see which causes the bigger commotion.
I know some families would miss going to church or reading and discussing the CHRISTmas story more than the presents, but I bet they're precious few.
Easter? It's more than a name; we've adopted Easter eggs and Easter rabbits from pagan culture. But why even adopt the name? Probably to merge two ideas and appease two religious groups. That's not transforming the culture.
And bringing it back to the topic at hand, if the RCC blended the celebration of Jesus' birth and resurrection with pagan holidays, why wouldn't I be at least a little suspicious of a doctrine that doesn't appear to be solidly grounded in the Bible? I'm not saying there's no scripture to back up PVM, I just don't think there's enough.
.
"Actually, I think it's very possible and probable. When I said "I'm not saying probable", I was speaking from your perspective. This isn't special pleading, and I'm not asking for lab-science proof; I'm merely trying to point out one way this doctrine could have come about and used a couple of well known examples to make my point."
Oh dear, doctrines popping up out of nowhere and being confirmed by Church coucils around half a millenium afterwards formally. If it isn't true then ...well... what a pathetic Church Jesus founded. Complete apostasy. All believing as dogma and confirming as dogma something that could quite well be false. Ah well, that's the end of Christianity. Even Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and other luminaries couldn't get it right believing in Marys' PV too. Good thing we're allowed to keep reinventing the wheel until we get back to just how it was when this whole thing started.
Anyway, about the gate of Ezekial I was reading a quote from Augustine the other day (I'm not sure where I'm kicking myself for not having it on the spot) where he makes the comparision between Mary and the gate. But wait a second, Augustine is a Catholic and believed in things like the "The New is contained the Old and the Old revealed in the New."
Sigh I can't win. At least you didn't answer the point that even if (although there isn't any evidence for it) the angel was speaking in the immediate future Mary was just about to get married.
Actually I boned up it yesterday. Mary and Joseph were betrothed under Jewish law and so were Married (ie it was not considered fornication to have relations at that stage). They just hadn't done the formal celebration and bringing Mary into his home (and hence in their case Mary having a baby would have looked suspicious/scandalous because she didn't yet live with Jospeh). So they were almost done and dusted you might say. In fact one source I read said this may never have happened(wedding celebration etc) because of the flight into Egypt after the birth etc but that wouldn't have made the marriage "invalid" or anything.
Well, while many find conspiracy theories fascinating, I find them dull and leave the cheerleaders for them to their attempts to blot out the sun by writing "darkness!" on their cell walls.
Grubb,
I reasoned in a more recent PVM thread
One thing I never understood in these debates over what the Bible says, what it "really means" and the like: were we not told to remain in unity as fellow-brothers in Christ under the YHWH who brought the Israelites out of slavery? 1 Corinthians 1:10 tells us this. So why do we, as brothers in Christ, try to beat each other up in cases of "sibling rivalry" over the minor details?
What needs to be argued about, however, are the main points of Christian-Judaism (since we are, in fact, following the same YHWH of Judaism, it seems fit to call our religions by that name): who is God? Who is Christ? What is the nature of all mankind? What is the nature of salvation?
On the point brought up about Mary, she was called, if I remember correctly, blameless in the sight of the Lord. This phrase is used several times throughout the Bible. However, we know that "no one is righteous, no not ONE"(Romans 3:9, emphasis added; see also Ps 143:2 and Gal 3:11). So, we know from these verses that no one is righteous. Blameless in God's sight, however, is how he sees all of His children. For they are not blameless in themselves, but He sees their devotion to Him and counts them as blameless.
This is the whole miracle of His salvation, that mankind, who is undeserving, is seen as pure and spotless in His sight.
I know that interpretations of single verses may differ, but there are some that cannot be interpreted differently, which we as His children and followers, must look to as the foundations of our beliefs in Christ, the Solid Rock. Based on such verses, we can hope to become enlightened as to the meanings of other verses which are interpreted in different ways.
But, again, the details are not the big issue in this whole denomination quarrel. If the unity of the body of Christ does not come about (and I will warn you here I will be point-blank honest about what I feel about this) then we might as well go living as we were before since we fight over each other as if one is a heretic while the other is not. We need to snap out of this and find out what we all agree on and go from there. If we continue like this, we will only end up in a spiritual war, so to speak, instead of fighting the true spiritual battle for the lost souls. One denomination tries to convert the other denominations instead of going to people who don't even know who Christ is. It is meaningless! We try to convert those who already follow Him because they believe in a couple facts differently. Originally we were merely "Followers of the Way (Jesus)" instead of being the religion whose people can't agree with themselves and have divided themselves to be barely recognizable as a single religion serving a single God.
I know not everyone will agree with me, but so is the world we live in. I just want to make sure that His Great Commission is not overlooked in the ongoing debate over the details.
However, we know that "no one is righteous, no not ONE"(Romans 3:9, emphasis added; see also Ps 143:2 and Gal 3:11). So, we know from these verses that no one is righteous.
Not so fast. It ain't that simple. You are neglecting both context and the nature of Hebrew idiom and so wrongly conclude that imputed justification must explain it. I've written three papers on this general question (and there is a lot to consider):
"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...inned-
mary.html
The Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity and Romans 3:10-11 ("None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God"): Reply to James White (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
depravity.html
Fallacious Calvinist Arguments For Total Depravity: Does Romans 1 Apply Universally to Fallen Man?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...uments-
for.html
Commenting by HaloScan
