Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).
As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)
• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
Enlightened me??? With what??? More fables...
Actually, history tells us that when young Jewish girls took vows of chastity it was FOR LIFE.
I don't believe you...Post some credible Jewish documents...
You see, my friend, if Mary had intentions of breaking her vows one day and "knowing" a man, she would have had no need whatsoever to ask that question in the first place: "But how shall that be"? She'd have known perfectly well "how that would be".
That whole line of thought is ridiculous...Mary planned on being a virgin until she was married...That's why she ask 'how shall that be'...
And no, the Scripture do not tell us that Mary had other children. Some verses refer to "Jesus' brothers and sisters', meaning his followers, disciples and brothers and sisters in the spirit who followed his every word. The ENTIRE Bible is rife with the term "brothers", clearly referrng many times to like-minded followers, or close friends.
That's what I've been saying in numerous posts...You got it, but you still don't get it...
Brother/brethren indicates someone with a common bond; whether it be a brother by blood, a brother in Christ, a brother in arms, a brother in race, etc...
But notice that the New Testament NEVER calls anyone "Mary's sons or daughters", NEVER. That's why the Protestant argument agaisnt the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity crumbles like a moth's wing when you touch it.
But you notice that no one ever calls Mary's dog LuLu...So what??? Does that mean she didn't have a dog??? You guys sure come up with some feeble reasoning...
You are essentially correct. I am not a member of any Church but my philosophy is very Unitarian.
I am not ready to nail some statement to the mast, but I think of the Bible as a book (or books) in a context. So I guess that would suggest that it is not "sufficient" because it does not -- in this line of thought -- stand alone.
But, as I say, I'm just mulling this thing over.
and ask ME why Dominicans claim a special relationship of patronage with the Magdalene who is, as we say,"the apostle to the apostles".
OK, consider yourself asked. :-) I am very interested in the subject and may well be in agreement with the Dominicans on this subject.
How about "Dominican Flavored Unitarian" as a tag line?
scroll down for more sketchiness.
If I find anything more discursive and complete I will let you know.
(Fr.Bruno Shah whose posts there are is a great guy. He did a summer at our Parish and is now on the staff at Easter Province (St. Joseph) headquarters at St. Vincent Ferrer's Church on, I think 63rd and Lex in Manhattan. It's a beautiful Gothic revival church, AND in one of the chancel windows you will see Aristotle ... with a HALO! Cracks me up.)
Thank you. I found this site earlier today and was "put off" by the following:
"...In the 13th century, the Church set great store by the conversion of prostitutes, the most devout of whom where incorporated into communities of penitents by the bishops. These communities, which were given a Dominican constitution, took St. Mary Magdalene as their patron, as the saint herself was believed to have belonged to their ranks."
For many years the Catholic Church taught, (whether oficially or not is not relevant) in error, that Mary Magdalene was a reformed prostitute. Even the linking of Mary Magdalene to prostitution is disturbing to me.
scroll down for more sketchiness.
Thanks again. I particularly appreciated the Dominican/Mary Nagdalene reference.
If I find anything more discursive and complete I will let you know.
(Fr.Bruno Shah whose posts there are is a great guy. He did a summer at our Parish and is now on the staff at Easter Province (St. Joseph) headquarters at St. Vincent Ferrer's Church on, I think 63rd and Lex in Manhattan. It's a beautiful Gothic revival church, AND in one of the chancel windows you will see Aristotle ... with a HALO! Cracks me up.)
Back in 2003 my Surge Protector took a direct hit from a lightning bolt. The Surge Protector, the computer, and my backup disk attached to the "protector" were all fried. My "library" of information on Mary Magdalene was lost. In spite of my good intentions I have not built my data up again.
I did find a 2003 post which touched on the subject.
"To: XXXXXXXXXXX
A question: mrs. xxxx and I have been having a similar conversation and we both were wondering why Jesus chose Mary of Magdala to appear to first after his resurrection. Got any comments on that?"
(OLD REGGIE) Before my computer was done in by lightning I had done some research on Mary Magdalene. Of course it all went up in smoke. It seemed to me she had a very powerful relationship with Jesus and I wondered if we were getting the full, true story. I had intended to spring that story into our discussions when the time was appropriate.
I will have to go back over that ground and build up my "Mary Magdalene" database one more time. Suffice it to say, I believe she was much more important in the early Church than we can glean from Scripture or Church History.
In the meanwhile a Google search on "Mary Magdalene" "Apostle To The Apostles" will yield much information.
60,692 posted on 07/22/2003 3:44 PM EDT by OLD REGGIE
((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN))
Obviously, at the time I had sympathies with the Unitarians, the Jews, and the Ariminians. (I still do, but Unitarian is easier to say.) :-)
Whatebver the truth of the Magdalene's life was, I think that as prosperity increased and economic inequity persisted, there must have been a lot of young women who were prostitutes. So whether the hagiography was on the beam or not, I think it was a good thing that it was possible for them to have a place where they could be fed and housed and spend their time in better ways than fornication for hire.
The first "house" that Dominic established was for "second order" (women, contemplatives, cloistered) sisters who were, the story goes, recovered fro Albigensiansism.
I think we forget that in the times, the "religious life" was likely to be a lot healthier, pleasant, and more moral than what was possible otherwise for unmarried women of modest means.
I think the point for Dominicans is, first, preaching in general, and second, in being prepared to hear the good news from unexpected quarters. I'm guessing more of us will be more superficial than you are when it comes to MM.
Anyway the legend gives us a key to the iconography since MM was thought to have red hair ....
The "Unafilliated" have a great advantage over the "Organized" in that we feel free to use any source generally available. :-)
(Secret: I will even use Athiest sites for research purposes.)
I think that it's a rather open secret!!! :)
True! There is no defensible timeline for any book, after much debate and arm twisting, accepted into our current "perfect" Bible. I presented two differing versons as an illustration the Gospels were written and accepted long before any "Fathers" invented an exalted role for Mary.
Well, the belief of the Church kinda differs from your sources.
At any rate, the belief is that the Gospel writer Luke wrote the first icon - of Mary. That was certainly pre-Gospel, and possibly before any of the rest of what would become Scripture was written. Certainly before it was widely circulated.
I must admit I chuckle when I see a presentation of fact justified by such terms as "the belief is", "Legend has it..", or "(Holy) Tradition is...".
That, my son, is not allowed as evidence in my court.
Since I don't believe that you run the Heavenly Judiciary, my concern would be more on the personal level, as in rational (!) adults conversing and debating. :)
Evidence is not of the first rate involving the exact timeline and happenings of first century events; much of it wanders the road from fact to belief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.