I stand corrected. It was the word for brother and used for close kin. The belief in the perpetual Virginity of Mary was also held by the reformers. I will argue that these reformers who found in Scripture evidence of Catholic abuses and adoption of non Scriptural practices surely would have rejected that doctrine if Biblical evidence plainly contradicted it. But here are their own words on the matter. Keep in mind they would not have hesitated to reject the teaching had they believed it oppossed in Scripture.
“Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)
John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639
None of these men ever minced words about what they believed was Catholic error. They had no reason to play nice or soften their opinon.
So I am curious why have so many modern day Protestants rejected this teaching? How one humble maid from Galilea be such a threat to them is beyond me.
Gads that NM April wind is fierce and cold today.
Forgot my wood glue.
uhhhh . . .
even the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature
is absolutely NO threat to Protty’s covered in the Blood of Jesus even if and when the imposter manifests as some sort of personage in league with the global government.
However, inordinate focus on the caricature is of significant hazard to some RC’s.
I am not “threatened” by Mary.
I think she must have been a wonderful person, to have been chosen by God for such a role. I am sure there are many things I can learn from her example, but no more so than any other person who obeyed the will of God at great personal cost.
God does not call perfect people to serve him, as there are NO perfect people. David was beloved of God and he did some truly vile things.
As I said above, I also refuse to believe that God rewarded her sacrifice by depriving her of other children, and forcing her and her husband to live a completely abnormal married life. The whole idea is completely contrary to the
character of God as He has revealed himself in Scripture.
I don’t reject the teaching as much as I reject the preoccupation Catholics have with the teaching.
I don’t care if she remained a virgin or not. Any more than I care if the wood that made the Cross was oak or maple. I consider it of equal importance (or lack thereof).
My faith as a Christian is about my faith in Christ, not about what may or may not have happened to any one else. If she remained a virgin, great, if she had other children by Joseph, equally great. My faith is not threatened or affected in anyway by either scenario.
The fact that Catholicism requires me to tie my faith to believing that she remained a Virgin is what I object to, not the teaching itself.