Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
StayCatholic.com ^ | 200 | Sebastian R. Fama

Posted on 03/24/2012 7:24:43 PM PDT by Salvation

 

Mary Ever-Virgin

by Sebastian R. Fama

Some say that Mary had children other than Jesus.  They cite several passages of Scripture that supposedly say as much.  One example is Matthew 1:24-25, which reads, "When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.  He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus."

 

The word "until" seems to indicate that after the birth of Jesus there were normal marital relations.  However, the Greek word heos (ἕως) which is translated as until, does not imply that anything happened after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.  The point of the verse is that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus.

 

The word "until" is used this way elsewhere. In reference to John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states: "The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert until the day of his manifestation to Israel."  Does this mean that once he appeared publicly he left the desert?  It might appear so, but Jesus says otherwise in Luke 7:24: "When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John.  'What did you go out to the desert to see, a reed swayed by the wind?'" John had already begun his ministry back in chapter 3. Here we are in chapter 7, and he is still in the desert.

 

Luke 2:7 is often pointed to as evidence that Mary had other children. It reads: "And she gave birth to her firstborn son." If Mary had a first born wouldn't that indicate that she had at least a second born? Not at all. In Hebrew culture the term first-born is simply a title for a woman's first child. If she only had one child he would still be her first-born. There is a perfect example of this in Numbers 3:40: "The Lord then said to Moses, 'take a census of all the first-born males of the Israelites a month old or more, and compute their total number.'"  How many of those one month old babies do you suppose had younger siblings? I think it would be accurate to say, none of them. And yet they are still referred to as "first-born."

But what about the verses that speak about the brothers and sisters of Jesus? For instance, Matthew 13:55-56: "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother named Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Could Matthew be referring to Jesus' cousins? Although both Greek and English have a word for cousin, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, does not. Hence the words brothers and sisters are used. These terms can also be used to refer to friends. Observe how Jesus himself uses the word "brothers" in Matthew 28:10 and see what happens in verse 16: "Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me'...The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had ordered them." Were the disciples His siblings? Of course not!

A comparison of the three gospel accounts of the women at the foot of the cross demonstrates that James and Joseph, two of the named brothers, are the sons of Mary and Cleophas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25). This Mary is obviously not the mother of Jesus, as she is mentioned in addition to her. Another obvious reason is the fact that Jesus' mother was married to a man named Joseph, not Cleophas.

In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called "THE" son of Mary not "A" son of Mary. Elsewhere, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never the mother of anybody else. Even Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli taught that Mary remained a virgin. They believed that it was the clear teaching of Scripture.

In Luke 1:30-35, we find the following: "Then the angel said to her, 'Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus.'… But Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?'  And the angel said to her in reply, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.'" Mary's statement would make no sense unless she intended to remain a virgin. The angel said; "you will conceive" not you have conceived. Surely Mary knew the facts of life. If she were to conceive, her normal thought would have been that at some future time she would have relations with a man. Her protest could only have meant that she was a virgin and that she would like to keep it that way.  The angel's reply is an assurance that such would be the case. Mary's point becomes even more obvious when you consider the fact that she was already betrothed to Joseph.

Additional evidence can be found at the foot of the cross. In John 19:26-27 we find: "When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple there whom He loved, He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; catholic; perpetualvirginity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

For Further Study

The Early Church Fathers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity  (Free)
Books -
Introduction to Mary by Mark Miravalle and Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn and Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Fr. Luigi Gambero.
CD - Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn and  The Gospel Truth About Mary - Volume 1 by Tim Staples
DVD - Footprints of God: Mary with Stephen Ray


1 posted on 03/24/2012 7:24:51 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

For the record

KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; catholic; perpetualvirginity; Click to Add Keyword


2 posted on 03/24/2012 7:34:21 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
3 posted on 03/24/2012 7:36:27 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Essays for Lent: Praying to Saints
Essays for Lent: Indulgences
Essays for Lent: Purgatory
Essays for Lent: Confession
Essays for Lent: The Eucharist
Essays for Lent: The Mass
Essays for Lent: Baptism

Essays for Lent: Justification
Essays for Lent: Tradition
Essays for Lent: Scripture Alone
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Essays for Lent: The Pope
Essays for Lent: The Church
Essays for Lent: The Bible
Essays for Lent: The Trinity
Essays for Lent: Creationism or Evolution?

4 posted on 03/24/2012 7:37:41 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I disagree with the Roman Catholic interpretation on this matter, but that is not what I want to respond to. The last line has a simple answer:

“If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?”

Answer: Jesus’ siblings didn’t believe in Him as the Son of God until after His resurrection. He brought a lot of trouble on them as Torah-believing Jews. Brother James finally got it after Jesus arose from the Dead. Nevertheless, Jesus was free to pick out whomever he wanted to take care of his mother.

I have a question for all believers, Catholics and Prostestants alike: Just where in the Bible does it ever say that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is John? Nothing Jesus actually said to or about John in the Bible gives the least inkling of this. Yet, because these word appear in the Gospel of JOhn and because John is the only one of the original apostles who was not executed, an assumption is made by the Church that this is who Jesus was talking about.

I have heard sermons on this,one stating that John was just too darn humble to name himself. Right- The Son of Thunder too humble. I don’t buy it.


5 posted on 03/24/2012 7:50:10 PM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san

There were no brothers and sisters. That’s why Christ gave his mother to John’s care.

Did you read the article? any of the links? Especially the highlighted ones that have to do with language?


6 posted on 03/24/2012 8:09:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
There is no way that Mary is a perpetual virgin according to Psalm 69:8, Matt. 12:46-49,13:55 and Luke 8:19-21

Adelphos = brother
Adelphe = sister

The Greek is clear that Jesus had brother and sister, I'm not sure why there is even an argument?

Did I miss something?
7 posted on 03/24/2012 8:13:15 PM PDT by ForAmerica (Conservative Christian Black Man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san
At that time Jews were very more aware of "honor your mother and father." It was a commandment. Jesus 's kin took care of their mothers. Your arguement has nothing to do with Jesus that they would give up on their mother. It does not hold water in my opinion.

A Mother's your mother no matter what you brother does. They did not believe in trusting strangers for their mother unless there were no other relatives. It was not like today's thinking. They took care of their own.

Nobody went to the senior living center old age home.

Families took care of it.

8 posted on 03/24/2012 8:14:41 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica
This thread explains your Greek.

Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary so important to Catholics? [Ecumenical Vanity]

9 posted on 03/24/2012 8:30:43 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica

Three things in the Bible lead some Protestants to believe that Mary was not ever-virgin: the reference to Jesus’ “brothers”, the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25, and the reference to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn.” Let’s look at these one at a time.
 

Jesus’ Brothers:
 
The word “brother” or “brethren” is often used in Scripture for relationships other than that of those born of the same parents:
 
 
Verse

People Involved

Relationship

Genesis 11:26-28,
Genesis 14:14

Lot - Abraham

nephew - uncle

Genesis 29:15

Jacob - Laban

nephew - uncle

1 Chronicles 23:21-22

Children of Kish and Eleazar

cousins

2 Kings 10:13-14

42 “brethren” of King Azariah

kinsmen

Deuteronomy 23:7, Jeremiah 34:9

All Jews

practitioners of the same religion

Matthew 23:8

all who love Christ

members of the Church

John 20:17-18,
Matthew 12:49

Christ - His disciples

Savior - saved

1 Corinthians 15:6

500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ

strangers

 
This isn’t every reference to “brother(s)” or “brethren” in the Bible, but it’s enough to prove that the use of the words “brothers” or “brethren” doesn’t necessarily indicate “blood brothers” at all. This is true is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “uncles,” “nephew,” “niece,” “step-brother,” “step-sister,” etc. All were referred to as “brother” and “sister,” which were translated into Greek as adelphos or adelphe.

Nonetheless, and despite Tradition, there are four people that some Protestants claim are the blood brothers of Jesus, an idea which comes from Mark 6:3 which says that Jesus is “the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude and Simon.” But to find out who the real mother of these four are, look at the following:

Matthew 27: 55-56 tells us of three women at the Cross: “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.”
 

Mark 15:40 tells us of the three women there, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.”
 

John 19:25 is the most inclusive, telling us of four women’s presence, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (Note here the reference to Mary’s “sister” who’s named Mary!)

Putting all these together, we can cross off Joses and James the Less as being Jesus’ blood brothers because their mother is the wife of Cleophas.

We can cross Simon off the list because Mark 3:18 tells us he is a Canaanite, “And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite...”

Jude, we are told in Jude 1:1, is the “servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.”

Crossing just one name off the list is enough to prove the point that the Hebrew word “brother” means many things (just as the word does in English today, my “brother or sister in Christ!”) and to prove that this is so even in the very particular context of Mark 6:3.

St. Papias, writing in the first and early second centuries and called by St. Irenaeus a “hearer of John,” refers clearly to all the above Marys in his letter, a fragment of which survives to this day. He writes:

Mary the mother of the Lord; 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; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, 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 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. [read the complete letter fragment here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm. Will open in new browser window.]

In addition to this, Jesus could well have had step-brothers, as Church Tradition and early Church writings tell us that Joseph was an older man when Mary, a consecrated virgin, was betrothed to him so that he could act as her protector when she got to be of age enough to “defile the Temple” (though she could not, in fact defile the Temple). Please read the Protoevangelium of St. James, dated to ca A.D. 125, which, in chapter 9, clearly states that St. Joseph had other children from a former marriage. Though this document was rejected by the Church as being a part of infallible Scripture, it is very early evidence of the belief, held as possisble from the beginning of the Church, that Jesus had “brothers” because his earthly father, Joseph, had children when he married Mary, a consecrated virgin. Also see the apocryphal document, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, yet another early source which proves that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary’s consecrated virginity, that Joseph was an aged man when he married her, and that she was kept free from sin.

You’re Joseph. Your wife gave birth to God. Would you have sex with her?

Another note on this: when Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive a child, she says to him in Luke 1:34, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” We are told seven verses before that when this happened she was “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.” She was already engaged, knew she was to be married, is visited by an angel who tells her she will have a Son, and she acts bewildered, as though it’s an impossibility because she “knows not a man.” She’s not confused that she will bring forth a Son who “shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”; she is confused that she will bring forth a son at all! She doesn’t “get it” because she knows she is a consecrated virgin and will not “know a man!” She is confused that she will have a son at all!

Yet another poser: why, in the name of all that’s Holy, would Jesus give Mary to John to care for if He had all these brothers and sisters around? John 19:26-27 reads, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”

And finally, if Jesus had brothers and sisters, don’t you think their descendants would know it? At least in the first 300 years or so of the Church? Where were they? Did they speak of “Uncle Jesus” often? I’d think that if He had all of these brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews around, there’d have been some word of it.


10 posted on 03/24/2012 8:31:12 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://www.fisheaters.com/mary.html


11 posted on 03/24/2012 8:33:17 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica

Yes, the two highlight threads above.


12 posted on 03/24/2012 8:34:25 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
OK here we go again. I usually ignore all this Mary the ‘Holy Queen’ worshipful threads, but this one in particular caught my attention.

WHO are these so called ‘early church fathers’.... by name please?

This thread is nothing more than a continuation of making Mary something different than what the Scripture literally says. Mary was only crowned a ‘Holy Queen’ in the vivid imaginations of some who are for whatever reason obsessed with the notion that she would actually be a human if she had sex with her husband....

13 posted on 03/24/2012 8:51:13 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

More redefinition of words to suit Catholic doctrine. Now “until” means “never”, “sister/brother” means “cousin” and “Hebrew and Greek” means “Aramaic”.


14 posted on 03/24/2012 9:11:10 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
The Early Church Fathers are the generation who knew the apostles and in some cases were instructed by them.

Early Church Fathers

And then here are a bunch of FR threads on different topics from the Early Church Fathers:

The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Prayer is Answering the Word of God [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: These Words are the Word of God [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Two Meanings of the Bible [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: These Words are the Word of God [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Guide to the Discovery of Scripture [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Every page of the Bible is a hymn to Christ [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Four Gospels [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: The Scriptures are one book in Christ [Ecumenical]

The Early Church Fathers on Scripture: The Nourishing Bread of Scripture [Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on the Scriptures: Reading Scripture with the Early Church...[Ecumenical]
Catholic Word of the Day: PATRISTICS, 05-13-11
On the Unity of the Church. [Church Fathers (cont'd)]
On the Unity of The Church [Church Fathers, (cont'd)]
On The Unity of The Church (cont'd)
On the Unity of the Church (Cont'd) [Church Fathers]
On the Unity of the Church. [Church Fathers]
Abortion and the Early Church [Fathers] (Catholic & Orthodox Caucus)
Why do Catholics always talk about the Early Church Fathers (Apostolic Fathers)?[Ecumenical]
Church History, Justin Martyr, Preeminent Apologist
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Apostolic Fathers of the Church
THE CHURCH FATHERS: A DOOR TO ROME (fundamentalist warns saying they sound too Catholic)
Were the Church Fathers Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism?
Were the Church Fathers Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism?

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
The Faith of Our Fathers
The Early Church Fathers
The Early Church Fathers on The Church (Catholic Caucus)
Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

The Early Church Fathers on Hell - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Intercession of the Saints - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Real Presence - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Confession / Reconciliation - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Justification - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Contraception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Mother of God - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers

Early Church Fathers - Worship on Sabbath or Sunday
The Early Church Fathers on the Assumption [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Look to the Church Fathers to Shed Light on Modern Problems, Writes the Pope
On St. Clement of Rome -The Church Has a Sacramental, Not Political Structure (March 7, 2007)
Truly a Doctor of Unity (St. Ignatius of Antioch) (March 14, 2007)
St. Justin Martyr: He Considered Christianity the “True Philosophy” (March 21, 2007)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: The First Great Theologian of the Church (March 28, 2007)
St. Clement of Alexandria: One of the Great Promoters of Dialogue Between Faith and Reason (April 18, 2007)
On Origen of Alexandria: He Was a True Teacher (April 25, 2007)
Origen: The Privileged Path to Knowing God Is Love

15 posted on 03/24/2012 9:21:20 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I could read most of the New Testament by the time I read all these links. Which is going to benefit my ‘soul/spirit’ more? I realize that Christ did speak to the masses in parables but He took the time to explain the parables to His disciples and the explanations are Written. Why not just read the WORD instead of philosophies of people that call themselves ‘father’?
16 posted on 03/24/2012 9:58:11 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san
I have a question for all believers, Catholics and Prostestants alike: Just where in the Bible does it ever say that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is John? Nothing Jesus actually said to or about John in the Bible gives the least inkling of this. Yet, because these word appear in the Gospel of JOhn and because John is the only one of the original apostles who was not executed, an assumption is made by the Church that this is who Jesus was talking about.

I have heard sermons on this,one stating that John was just too darn humble to name himself. Right- The Son of Thunder too humble. I don’t buy it.

I'll make a stab at this since you direct your question to all believers. I lean a great deal, with certain qualifications naturally, on Paul, who wrote 2/3rds of the New Testament canon. As such, I take seriously his admonition not to allow ourselves to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. He also took pains to explicitly connect himself with his writings, as in Galatians, "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."

But Paul was a scholar, a scribe and a cleric. John was a fisherman. While I don't buy sight unseen the traditional picture of their primitive poverty attributed to the rural working class in Galilee we can guess he was certainly a worker, a man of action, living in a community of such people, though there were scribes everywhere at the time - as they always are in times of great uncertainty.

The fishermen among the Apostles were direct, not given to subtleties, and we have many examples of this in Peter and in the Zebedee brothers, those "Sons of Thunder," backing that up.

As to the contrast in his character as he himself describes it before and his behavior after, well... I'm getting ahead of myself. First...

As to John being "the beloved apostle," the verse that may come closest to answering your question directly is second to last in his Gospel, wherein he is reliably reported to have testified, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

Here John explicitly connects himself with the Third Person narrative, though without calling himself the "beloved apostle" in that context. In the context of the entire manuscript, however, it adds weight to the traditional interpretation.

In John's style, either dictating, with assistance, or writing directly, there are also more obscure clues having to do with the use of the middle voice, something at the heart of the Hellenistic languages but alien to our English.

In the narrative there are also events, as I'm sure you've long noted, where John is a definite participant (e.g, the Transfiguration) but confines himself to describing the actions of the others present, especially Simon Peter, who may have begun babbling inappropriately.

It's interesting to compare his writing style in his reliable report of good news, his Gospel, with his epistles written when he was much older. He may well have sharpened his writing skills since his almost monosyllabic and pointed style retains the simplicity.

As to a change in John's character, the notion that John's behavior was greatly changed following the Resurrection, along with that of the others of the Eleven following the Resurrection and after Pentecost, has always been one of the most compelling "proofs" of the historic accuracy of the Gospel.

All the Apostles operated in ways counter to their former behavior, and these changes are complete. They were empowered, their eyes were opened, and they saw their teacher alive and sailing off into the blue. Peter preaches boldly, fearlessly, and though he makes some mistakes in line with his former character, he's still Simon Peter but he's no longer even capable of thinking the same way.

That John would permanently adopt a more circumspect humility following his being a direct witness to the death, burial and resurrection of his Master is not strange at all.

And that humility when describing his own behavior during Christ's ministry would fit with a reluctance to bring up a lot of things necessary to the telling of his testimony.

"The eye the light of God hath clarified remains open, and we may close it nevermore."

17 posted on 03/24/2012 10:00:43 PM PDT by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


18 posted on 03/24/2012 11:55:44 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica
Did I miss something?

Quite a bit, obviously.

You also might want to familiarize yourself with the teachings of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, amongst many others, who believed in and taught of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

19 posted on 03/25/2012 1:19:37 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


20 posted on 03/25/2012 1:22:25 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham; ForAmerica
You also might want to familiarize yourself with the teachings of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, amongst many others, who believed in and taught of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The modern non-Catholic generally has no trouble saying that Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli were all wrong, too ... just as he has no trouble saying they were all wrong about contraception. Perhaps the points are related, given modernity's rejection of chastity in all forms.

21 posted on 03/25/2012 5:02:07 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Does your life need some excitement? Become a Cub Scout leader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
This isn’t every reference to “brother(s)” or “brethren” in the Bible, but it’s enough to prove that the use of the words “brothers” or “brethren” doesn’t necessarily indicate “blood brothers” at all. This is true is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “uncles,” “nephew,” “niece,” “step-brother,” “step-sister,” etc. All were referred to as “brother” and “sister,” which were translated into Greek as adelphos or adelphe.

So these ignorant humans had no way to identify between a distant relative and a blood brother, or sister...Somebody's pulling your chain...And you're falling for it...

And then you copy and paste miles of words by your experts that are supposed to appease the simpletons who are told and believe they themselves can not understand the scriptures ...

Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

suggenēs=cousin...

Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

suggenēs=kin

All were referred to as “brother” and “sister,” which were translated into Greek as adelphos or adelphe.

HaHaHa...Why isn't Mary's cousin Elizabeth referred to as Mary's sister???

You apparently have no clue why non relatives of Jesus were called brothers/ sisters and that not all relatives were called brothers/sisters...

You guys are so gullible...A little bible study with some belief in the pure words of God will clear up all of those fallacies and fantasies of your religion...

22 posted on 03/25/2012 6:06:31 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
More redefinition of words to suit Catholic doctrine. Now “until” means “never”, “sister/brother” means “cousin” and “Hebrew and Greek” means “Aramaic”.

That's the only way the Catholic fantasy can get any traction; i.e., 'how can we fit our religion into the bible?,,,we change the bible'...

23 posted on 03/25/2012 6:10:52 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The modern non-Catholic generally has no trouble saying that Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli were all wrong, too ... just as he has no trouble saying they were all wrong about contraception. Perhaps the points are related, given modernity's rejection of chastity in all forms.

Not all wrong...Be we realize these guys were brought up within the trappings of the Catholic religion and had to break free into the scriptures...And some of the baggage was hard to discard...

We on the other hand have full access to the words of God (thanks to theses same guys and others) without being loaded down with the weight of the perverse teachings of your religion...

24 posted on 03/25/2012 6:18:38 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Yes, this time and all the other times this comes up on FR.

Whether Mary and JOseph had other children doesn’t really matter to the story of our Salvation, even though I do believe they had other children (which can be found in the Bible, despite efforts to explain it away). People on this post expound on the duties of the Jews towards their families and if there were other children, they would have taken care of Mary. By that same token, a young Jewish couple would “be fruitful and multiply” as God commanded. Nowhere in the Bible did God command Mary to have only Jesus. To say that Jewish families back in the days of Jesus never broke apart over serious disagreements of faith is wrong. Shunning was a practice then as it is to this day for orthodox believers. I believe that Jewish followers of Jesus suffered the most at the hands of their own families. Persecution was rampant among the various sects (e.g., Paul before his conversion).

It will all be known in the Great Hereafter. That’s when I fully expect to find out what really happened. In the meanwhile, The Bible is all I need. It’s got all the answers that count. No more, No less. Isn’t that what the Bible tells us?


25 posted on 03/25/2012 7:19:10 AM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Relax! It's a belief as beliefs go! It's always been in the history of Christian faith for two thousand years. Stop getting personal. If You think you figured it out from so called scripture only view that's your prerogative.

But remember the title Essays for Lent. Do you believe in Lent. It basically for Lenten observers but it is an open thread too.

There are civil ways to communicate without getting into the wrong personal words.

Brother and sister were also used like today too. Brother of Jews. Brother of Christ. Brother of humanity.

Freeper Cheers

26 posted on 03/25/2012 10:21:49 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"WHO are these so called ‘early church fathers’.... by name please?"

You asked a question.

She politely posts answers to your question. Then you go back to this

" I could read most of the New Testament by the time I read all these links. Which is going to benefit my ‘soul/spirit’ more"

So without reading something else is declared. What is the purpose of a discussion and your words?

Remember this thread reads Essays for Lent. Do we practice lent? We ask a question? But do not follow what was presented when asked towards a person.

27 posted on 03/25/2012 10:46:23 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
"WHO are these so called ‘early church fathers’.... by name please?"

You asked a question.

She politely posts answers to your question. Then you go back to this

I did not question the politeness of the links, I asked a specific question and I got multiples links that required much time to read.

" I could read most of the New Testament by the time I read all these links. Which is going to benefit my ‘soul/spirit’ more"

So without reading something else is declared. What is the purpose of a discussion and your words?

I can read the WORD and not one place in the whole of the Bible is 'lent' or any kind of essay WRITTEN purporting the claim of Mary Ever-Virgin recorded by those that God and His only Begotten Son selected to record His WORD.

I am trying to figure out who these 'fathers' were that decided they needed to recut and refine Peter's keys.

Remember this thread reads Essays for Lent. Do we practice lent? We ask a question? But do not follow what was presented when asked towards a person.

Christ never celebrated 'lent' or prayed to Mary Ever-Virgin. Christ kept the Passover, and His last observance was the appointed time wherein He became the one and for all time required blood sacrifice. No longer was it a requirement to shed blood for the forgiveness of sins.

See now as it is Written there is coming a time wherein all will have the WORD as given by the Heavenly Father in their heart/minds. AND the traditions of man are not going to be in the homework.

28 posted on 03/25/2012 11:08:29 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica; Salvation; johngrace; Just mythoughts; count-your-change; Tax-chick; Iscool; ...

Preface

Some time back, a verbose work was posted on FR, unattributed which i found out was really from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html, and below are my responses as it relates to this latest assertion of perpetual Marian virginity (PMV), and which is part of a much larger response, which i have not finished or all proof read as yet, but thought i would post this part here. You can see the rest of the work in progress here Thank God for His grace and truth and longsuffering toward us.

I would like to say first that while Roman Catholics condescend to using Scripture in attempting to substantiated to evangelicals that what they hold to is Scriptural, yet in reality they cannot allow assurance to be based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, as only the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) is held to be able to provide such assurance. Thus any appeal to Scripture by them as if it could provide assurance of truth is ultimately in order to convince souls that this is not the way to obtain certitude, and that they instead need to have implicit faith in the AIM of Rome in things it has so defined (once they figure out which ones are).

Second, recognized Roman Catholic authorities and other web apologists admit that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" for the Immaculate Conception, and which also applies to PMV, and thus what the Catholic must attempt to do is to defend a tradition by wresting texts of Scripture to support it, often going to extremes in his own private and often careless interpretation, and which actually demeans Scripture, rather than honoring it like as he does Mary.

This is not only due to Scripture not saying what the Catholic wants it to say about Mary, but because, unlike Rome, the Holy Spirit gave little press to Mary, unlike to souls like Peter and Paul, the latter of whom sees relative little emphasis by Catholics, especially as compared with Mary, who, Ratzinger acknowledges, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal.” (“God and the world;” p. 296)

Scripture no where states or teaches an exception for Mary as regards not being a sinner, or for her having a sexless marriage, or being a heavenly object of petitions from earth, etc,, which absence is contrary to the example of the Holy Spirit in stating like and even lesser exceptions to the norm by notable subjects,. from the length of days to extra toes to being a just person to eating locusts to being sinless, and thus Christ is said at least twice to be the latter. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22)

While no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” (ibid, p. 306; see comments on Co-redemptrix below) yet this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, which the Roman Catholic apologists attempt to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations here.

Nonetheless i have undertaken to go through most of the list of texts so far, and in should be which it kept in mind that the objection is not to Mary being honored and allowing her to be the women of Gn. 3:15, or other like possibilities, but to the excess exaltation, adoration and appellations that such is part of (and the manner of exegesis behind it); Such as (again) as being the mighty Mother of God and a perpetually sinless virgin who is ascended to Heaven and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power and having the ability and function to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, and even a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself.

► In the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught,

as Christ was sinless, so Mary is said to be:

as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

as the Lord was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, so also Mary;

as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) Mary is made Queen of Heaven;

as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things,

as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing great restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

and as the Lord called souls to come to Him for salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord, being coredemptorist and “the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.,”(Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 3:22) with Mary shedding her blood through Christ, the logic behind which can lead back to Eve; And more, and is honored with with more titles than the Lord Himself.

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

What is said above in part about titles departing too great an extent from the language of Scripture, applies in principal to the Theotokos title, which conveys that God ontologically had a mother, which is more than what it may technically allow, and is part of the supererogatory if praise which is “above that which is written,” (1Cor. 4:6) and “written” almost always refers to Scripture, it being abundantly evidenced to be the assured infallibility standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and by which the Lord established His claims and the church.

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin


Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Twice the Holy Spirit refers to Mary bringing forth her firstborn son, (Mt. 1:25; Lk. 2:7) but which does not make Jesus an only child nor teach that He was not, but the Holy Spirit makes exceptions evident.

The constant eisegesis the which Catholic will engage in here in order to make up for what the Holy Spirit does not provide is both amazing and grievous. All throughout Scripture we see God making evident important or even notable aspects and exceptions to the norm of subjects, from the extraordinary age of Methuselah (Gn. 5:27) to the extraordinary 6 six fingers and 6 toes of the son of Goliath, (1Cor. 20:6) to the extraordinary diet of John the Baptist. (Mt. 3:4) the extraordinary virgin Israelite males of Revelation, (Rv. 14: 4) and many more, but somehow the common Catholic practice of praying to the departed finds no even one mention, nor a marriage between any child bearing couple in which there is “leave” but no “cleave,” contrary to God's description of marriage, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) and to what would be the normal inference of “until” in Mt. 1:25. ,

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

See above.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

The careless manner in which the Roman Catholic apologist lifts any text he can force to support his tradition is irreverent. The text here is not referring to the birth of Christ nor of Him coming into the world, but of His coming into the sanctuary, which the world was not, and the temple Ezekiel refers to is different in specifications than the one built under Moses, and is yet to be built!

The more the Catholic attempts to force Scripture temple to support its tradition-based doctrine the more it reveals that it does not come from Scriptural warrant and is contrary to what it does teach.

What is more incredible is that the Catholic has Jesus being born without breaking the hymen, even though doing so would not disallow her from being a virgin (some females are virgins even though it has been broken due to causes outside sexual relations).

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

The Roman Catholic apologist (RCA) sees what he wants, but rather than Jesus always being referred to as “the” son of Mary, Jesus is never called the son of Mary except once by those who merely saw Him “after the flesh,” (Mk. 6:3), but He is called the Son of God about 50 times.

In addition, no where does Jesus actually refer to Mary as being “my mother,” and actually only personally address her as “women,” and though this is not a denial that she was the mother of Jesus in a human sense (versus ontologically begetting His Deity), yet among other aspects the lack of this express appellation speaks against the over emphasis and focus on Mary as the mother of Christ. And and in response to a pointed call to recognize her, he answers, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Liklewise in response to a “blessed be thy mother,” type statement Christ responds, "But he said, Yea rather [one word, “menounge:“ “rather,” “but” (Rm. 9:20), yes or doubtless], blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:28) Mary is not blessed above all women, but “among women” (Lk. 1:28,42), being one of many whose blessing is because they obey the word of God in faith.

In his desire and practice of thinking of Mary above that which is written, (contra 1Cor. 4:6), the Catholic not only has Mary being a consecrated temple virgin, and who gets married and with the intent that remains a virgin, and has Jesus being born without breaking her hymen, but he then asserts “perhaps most certainly that Joseph was a virgin” (contrary to what some CFs believed), and which shows the extremes he is willing to go to, and how he cannot allow objective analysis to threaten his desired conclusion. Of course, if Joseph was a virgin then i think he should be honored more than Mary on this respect!

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Here, the Catholic incredibly asserts that Mary's response “How shall this be done” (DRB) “How can this be,” (NAB) must mean she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity, which would also mean that Joseph would have agreed to it as well, even though Scripture knows of no such thing, not anywhere mentions this radical marriage, but only that Joseph “knew here not “until” he had brought forth her first born son.” (Mt. 1:25) And which results in more special pleading by RCAs in arguing against the normal import of the Greek word and in its contextual construction.

What is further incredible is that the Catholic expects us to also suspend objectively asking how Mary's response could mean something besides his conclusion, for the answer is the most obvious, which is that “before they came together, she was [to be] found with child of the Holy Ghost,” as per Mt. 1:8, as Joseph and Mary were only betrothed, and which would typically last a year, sometimes longer. As for Mary being a a consecrated Temple virgin, this idea does comes not from Scripture but from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James (Protoevangelium of James), and which is considered to be pseudepigraphical.

Women did assemble at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation*, and the very aged widow Anna “departed not from the temple,” (Lk. 2:36) and Paul alluded to widows who apparently consecrated themselves to a single life of celibacy, (1Tim. 5:11,12) and Catholic look to 2 Macc 3:19-20 which speaks of some virgins apparently living in some apartments by the temple, but besides nothing at being said about Mary being such in Scripture, the only examples of temple virgins in inspired Scripture were widows.

Moreover, to suppose that Mary would leave temple dedication in order to live as a virgin in marriage is further removed from Scriptural warrant and reality.

*Josephus describes that outer court being open to all, except menstruating women, while the second court allowed all Jewish men and menstrually-clean Jewish women, but only Jewish men could enter the third court. And of course, the fourth court was restricted to priests who were properly attired, which be the High Priest.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

While the Catholic relies upon arguments from silence* for much of his Mariology, here he used absence as a proof for his doctrine.

Yet while the absence of other siblings is noteworthy, the subject is only that of one missing child, and there is no contextual reason to mention others.

Nor was it necessary for Mark or Luke (Mark 10:46; Lk. 18:35) to mention the second blind man, but which Matthew does, (Mat 20:30)

And while Luke does not mention the siblings of Jesus in cp. 2, he is faithful to do so, as are all the gospel writers. (Lk. 8:19-21; Mt. 12:46,47; 13:55; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 2:12; 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14) In all these the Catholic is forced to relegate them to speaking in the larger sense, and contrary to any immediacy which context infers, (cf. Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32) and which could be used to rob other mothers of having children as well.

In addition, Ps. 69:8, which is linked to the Messianic verse that follows, (Ps. 69:9; cf. 21) speaks of Jesus being as an alien to His “mother's children,” which Jn. 7:3,5 comports with.

The Catholic has no problem with “his mother” only referring to Mary, even though “mother” can also be used in the broader sense, (Mt. 12:49,50) but when a text says "Then came to him his mother and his brethren..." (Luke 8:19) then they vehemently deny this can refer to siblings of Christ.

Moreover, the Lord Jesus never exalts His mother after the manner as Catholics do, but despite prime opportunities to do so instead He makes all who obey God's will to also be His mother, and brethren. Of course, if a Catholic Spirit had inspired Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit then it would be substantially different.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. " (Luke 11:27-28)

"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! " (Matthew 12:47-49)

*For example, Catholic argue that since Scripture does not say you cannot pray to the departed, then that means it can be allowed, even though it has no positive examples amid the multiplicity of prayers, and is contrary in principal to what Scripture teaches on who to pray to in Heaven, and the hermeneutic behind this could also be used to sanction such things as the Mormonic teaching that man preexisted as a spirit, etc.),

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

What is extremely disrespectful is the manner in which the Catholic continually forces Scripture to support his desired conclusions. Here he enlists Mark 3:21 (And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself”), but the word used for brother/brethren is not there, and cannot be said to necessarily refer to brothers or relatives.

As for John 7:3-4, (His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest,...”), this does refer to brethren, and distinguishes between them and His disciples, “For neither did his brethren believe in him, and this disbelief and type of alienation (no kin were seen at his crucifixion) can be seen as fulfilling Ps. 69:8, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children,” which is another verse which the Catholic is forced to disallow as even including any of His biological family.

As for speaking disrespectfully, this is exactly what they did, and rather than supporting the Catholic premise, instead it supports what Scripture reveals about the nature of his brethren.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

By now it should be apparent that what is unthinkable is that the Scripture should reveal that Mary had a normal biblical marriage, consistent with what the Holy Spirit examples and describes marriage as being, and that Jesus had biological brothers consistent with the normal meaning of the word in its context.

As for it being in thinkable that Jesus should commit the care of his mother to his beloved disciple John if he had brothers, this conclusion is only because of the Catholic cannot allow that Jesus had biological brother and who were not fit to care for his faithful mother, in contrast to the disciple of love, who by charity and longevity would be the best candidate.

And rather than what we would expect if consistent with Rome's overall exaltation of Mary, Jesus did not commit the care of his mother to Peter whom Rome looks to as the perpetuated head of the church, or to the whole body of his disciples, which Rome points to Mary, effectually even more than to Christ.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

In his rabid devotion to defend and exalt Mary the Catholic here responds to arguments I have not even heard made for Jesus having other biological brethren.

Top


V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi) = Cousins or Kinsmen

As will be seen, the Greek has words it uses for cousins (“suggenēs”, “anepsios”), which are different from the word for brethren (“adelphos”) which often refers to biological siblings. And while adelphos can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when used with the name of a parent then that is less likely, while celibate marriage is unknown in Scripture, and is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) and again, the Holy Spirit abundantly records significant deviations. Thus the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to established perpetual Marian virginity, that this was the case as per his tradition — but which he cannot and does not do.

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

“Cousin is not required or excluded here, but the Catholic judges himself superior to the Catholic translators of the classic Catholic DRB Bible which has “cousin” here, while determining the meaning of this word by appealing to the Hebrew and Aramaic insults the Holy Spirit who chose Greek with its greater range of expression to give the N.T. to the world (with Greek being the most common language in world of the early church). And and who is shown (in duplicate accounts) sometimes expanding or recasting what Christ said on earth, in providing a more comprehensive revelation in doing what Jesus tells Him to inspire the writers of the N.T. to pen. (Jn. 16:13-15)

Greek also enables a distinction between the many words which can be translated “love.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

The dispute is not that “adelphos” in its almost 350 occurrences can often mean “brethren” in the larger sense of the word, but that it is a forced and unwarranted conclusion to assert that it must mean other than biological siblings in the context of “his mother” or father or close familial context, as it would also disallow other “brethren” from being biological brothers or sisters. See Mt. 4:18; 10:2; 22:24; Mk. 5:37; 6:17; Lk. 3:1,19; Jn. 1:40,41; 11:21,32, and other remarks here and here among other places.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Here the Catholic fails to see the grammatical distinctions and significance to the order in which the Holy Spirit gives his record.

"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. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) " (Acts 1:13-15)

The Catholic here seeks to make "his brethren" referred to the 120, but as in John 2:12 ("After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days"), Mary once again is mentioned together with Jesus brethren, and only after that are the total multitude of "disciples" mentioned, in which a specification can be seen being made as to Jesus brethren now being part of the believing multitude.

As for brother meaning kinsmen in Hebrew, this is misleading, as the Hebrew word (''âch”) used for brother approximately 600 times in the Old Testament often means biological siblings, as even a cursory search would reveal.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Again this is not the argument, but that must mean something other than biological siblings which the Catholic cannot establish no matter how much he tries to argue against the biblical norm of marriage and the normal sense of “adelphos” with mother or in like context of close family.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

See above. The problem is none of these prove what the Catholic must as he it is who is making this extraordinary proposition.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (”anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

The Catholic is referring to the Septuagint not the Masoretic text but there is nothing new here except that the Catholic again fails to prove that “adelphos” cannot refer to biological siblings of Jesus, after the manner that it does in similar contexts.


As for cousin, in the New Testament the Greek uses “suggenēs” to refer to cousin or kinsmen, (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21) as well as “anepsios” in Col 4:10: Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas...”

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

And Joseph's ten brethren ['âch] went down to buy corn in Egypt.” (Gen 42:3) To which multitude more texts can be added.


Thu the Catholic here continues to be misleading in inferring “brethren” only means kinsmen, or disallows biological brothers/sisters.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -”brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

Ditto. Many words in Hebrew or Greek are not precisely restricted to this degree of specificity, and thus a word is translated according to normal usage unless otherwise demanded by context, and which weighs in favor of Jesus having biological siblings.

What is driving the Catholic to absolutely disallow adelphos from referring to Jesus having biological siblings is that of his requirement to support a tradition of men, that of the perpetual virginity of Mary with its own resultant exegetical errors. In other words, his interpretation is driven by his desired conclusion, not what the text best warrants.

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

But we do not have any word, context or cause within Scripture that would restrict adelphos to exclude it referring to Jesus having biological siblings.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

Gen: 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Gen 34:25: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Gen 42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Gen 47:5 And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:

Gen 49:5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Gen 50:8 And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house: only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen.


29 posted on 03/25/2012 11:59:06 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
We all have our beliefs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

30 posted on 03/25/2012 12:53:18 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief


31 posted on 03/25/2012 12:54:17 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Scripture

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.

John 2:4, 19:26 - Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Gen. 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s skull.

Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is “parthenos”) will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the “Theotokos”).

Luke 1:28 - “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 - Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

Luke 1:42 - “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The phrase “blessed are you among women” really means “you are most blessed of all women.” A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Luke 1:44 - Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

Luke 1:48 - Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the “Hail Mary” prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?

Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary “the woman with the redeemer.” This is because “co” is from the Latin word “cum” which means “with.” Therefore, “co-redemptrix” means “woman with the redeemer.” Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - the word “saints” (in Hebrew “qaddiysh”) means “holy” ones. So Mary is called Holy, the greatest Saint of all.

Luke 2:35 - Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus’ suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son’s suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.

Luke 2:19,51 - Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart. Catholics remember this by devoting themselves to Mary’s Immaculate Heart and all the treasures and wisdom and knowledge contained therein.

Top

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

Top

III. Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary’s intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus’ ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

Top

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Top

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (”anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -”brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Top

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Top

VII. Mary’s Coronation in Heaven

2 Tim 4:8 - Paul says that there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness. The saints are crowned in heaven, and Mary is the greatest saint of all.

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

1 Peter 5:4 - when the chief Shepherd is manifested we will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Rev. 2:10 - Jesus will give the faithful unto death the crown of life. Jesus gave Mary His Mother the crown of life.

Rev. 12:1 - Mary, the “woman,” is crowned with twelve stars. She is Queen of heaven and earth and the Mother of the Church.

Wis. 5:16 - we will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord. Mary is with Jesus forever crowned in His glory.

Top

VIII. Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her “not until”)

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (”heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not...until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

Top

IX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (”All have sinned”)

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned “ only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all (”pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (”pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all (”pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure...” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

Top

X. Misunderstandings about Jesus “rebuking” Mary

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus’ question about “who are my mother, and sisters and brothers” was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist’s prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family’s importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

Luke 11:28 - when Jesus says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,” some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God’s word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.

Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for “rather” is “menounge.” Menounge really means “Yes, but in addition,” or “Further.” Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary’s example in order to build up His kingdom.

Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.

John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary’s significance. Jesus’ question to Mary, “what have you to do with me?” does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus’ question illustrates the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom. Jesus’ question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.

Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, “what have you to do with us.” The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.

John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.

Top

Tradition / Church Fathers

I. Mary is the Mother of God

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

“And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God.” Athanasius, Orations III, 14(A.D. 362).

“Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 14 (A.D. 370).

“He reshaped man to perfection in Himself, from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit.” Epiphanius, The man well-anchored, 75 (A.D. 374).

“Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God?” Ambrose, Virginity, II:6 (c. A.D. 378).

“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead.” Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius, 101 (A.D. 382).

“To the question: ‘Is Mary the bearer of Man, or the bearer of God?’ we must answer: ‘Of Both.’” Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation, 15 (ante A.D. 428).

“And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God.” John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, II:2 (A.D. 430).

“But since the Holy Virgin brought forth after the flesh God personally united to the flesh, for this reason we say of her that she is Theotokos, not as though the nature of the Word had its beginning of being from the flesh, for he was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God...but, as we said before, because having personally united man’s nature to himself...” Cyril of Alexandria, To Nestorius, Epistle 17:11 (A.D. 430).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, ‘The Word was made flesh’: let him be anathema.” Council of Ephesus, Anathemas Against Nestorius, I (A.D. 430).

“For by the singular gift of Him who is our Lord and God, and withal, her own son, she is to be confessed most truly and most blessedly—The mother of God ‘Theotocos,’ but not in the sense in which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains, that she is to be called the Mother of God for no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards became God, just as we speak of a woman as the mother of a priest, or the mother of a bishop, meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say, was the holy Mary ‘Theotocos,’ the mother of God, but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 15 (A.D. 434).

“So then He was both in all things and above all things and also dwelt in the womb of the holy Mother of God, but in it by the energy of the incarnation.” John Damascene, Source of Knowledge, III:7 (A.D. 743).

Top

II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

Top

III. Mary is Ever-virgin

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,—that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.” Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

“And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).

“[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit...” Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).

“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

“Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.” Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

“Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin.” Peter Chrysoslogus, Sermon 117, (A.D. 432).

“And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), On the Feast of the Nativity, Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461).

“The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born’ means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till’ signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection.” John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).

Top

IV. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones...” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

“It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda (ante A.D. 795).

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception.” Timotheus of Jerusalem (8th Century).

Top

V. Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.” Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

“[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever.” Protoevangelium of John, 6:2 (A.D. 150).

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).

“[H]e was born of Mary the fair ewe.” Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (c. A.D. 177).

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

“For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man.” Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and antiChrist, 4 (A.D. 200).

“But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother—pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202).

“Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear ‘Emmanuel, God with us.’ This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moral of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul…For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin’s womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.” Tertullian, Flesh of Christ, 17 (A.D. 212).

“And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:17 (A.D. 244).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God [Theotokos] bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 10:19 (A.D. 350).

“In what remains we have the appointment of the Father’s will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world; these things are our salvation. For the sake of mankind the Son of God was born of tile Virgin and of the Holy Ghost. In this process He ministered to Himself; by His own power—the power of God—which overshadowed her He sowed the beginning of His Body, and entered on the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did it that by His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly nature, and that through this commingling there might come into being a hallowed Body of all humanity; that so through that Body which He was pleased to assume all mankind might be hid in Him, and He in return, through His unseen existence, be reproduced in all. Thus the invisible Image of God scorned not the shame which marks the beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage; through conception, birth, wailing, cradle and each successive humiliation. What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin’s womb and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was wrapped in a cradle.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2:24-25 (A.D. 355).

“And as the grace of the Triad is one, so also the Triad is indivisible. We can see this in regard to Saint Mary herself. The archangel Gabriel when sent to announce the coming of the Word upon her said, ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee’, knowing that the Spirit was in the Word. Wherefore he added: ‘and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.’” Athanasius, To Serapion of Thmuis, III:6 (A.D. 360).

“And when he had taken her, ‘he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word ‘till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.” John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew, 5:5 (A.D. 370).

“It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fullness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 2 (A.D. 371).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?” Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373).

“Whoever honors the Lord also honors the holy [vessel]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel” Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:21 (A.D. 377).

“And if the God-bearing flesh was not ordained to be assumed of the lump of Adam, what need was there of the Holy Virgin?” Basil, To the Sozopolitans, Epistle 261 (A.D. 377).

“The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue.” Ambrose, On Virginity, 2:15 (A.D. 377).

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379).

“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless.” Gregory of Nazianzen, To Cledonius, Epistle 101 (A.D. 382).

” ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord—simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself...Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord.” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 22:19,38 (A.D. 384).

“We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 (A.D. 415).

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice...through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation.” Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, ‘The Word was made flesh’ let him be anathema.” Council of Ephesus [Cyril’s Epistle 17], Anathema I (A.D. 431).

“A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.” Peter Chyrsologus, Sermon 117 (post A.D. 432).

“And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: ‘because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained…For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself: that Spirit (I say) who had determined to raise the fallen, to restore the broken, and by overcoming the allurements of the flesh to bestow on us in abundant measure the power of chastity: in order that the virginity which in others cannot be retained in child-bearing, might be attained by them at their second birth.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], in Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461).

Top

VI. Mary is our Powerful Intercessor

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed.” Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).

“Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected.... Nor would I hesitate to admit you to the altars of God, whose souls I would without hesitation call altars, on which Christ is daily offered for the redemption of the body. For if the virgin’s body be a temple of God, what is her soul, which, the ashes, as it were, of the body being shaken off, once more uncovered by the hand of the Eternal Priest, exhales the vapor of the divine fire. Blessed virgins, who emit a fragrance through divine grace as gardens do through flowers, temples through religion, altars through the priest.” Ambrose, On Virginity II:6,18 (A.D. 378).

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379).

“For it is said that he [Gregory the Wonderworker] heard the one who had appeared in womanly form exhorting John the Evangelist to explain to the young man the mystery of the true faith. John, in his turn, declared that he was completely willing to please the Mother of the Lord even in this matter and this was the one thing closest to his heart. And so the discussion coming to a close, and after they had made it quite clear and precise for him, the two disappeared from his sight.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Gregory the WonderWorker (A.D. 380).

“Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?” Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:31 (ante A.D. 403).

“Give milk, Mother to him who is our food, give milk to the bread coming down from heaven ...give milk to him who made you such that he could be made fruitfulness in conception and in birth, did not take from you the ornament of virginity.” Augustine, Sermon 369:1 (A.D. 430).

“Hail to thee Mary, Mother of God, to whom in towns and villages and in island were founded churches of true believers.” Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 (ante A.D. 444).

“Hail, our desirable gladness; Hail, O rejoicing of the Churches; Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness; Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace; Hail, most venerable memory…” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 4:3 (ante A.D. 446).

“The Virgin’s festival (parthenike panegyris) incites our tongue today to herald her praise ...handmaid and Mother, Virgin and heaven, the only bridge of God to men, the awful loom of the Incarnation, in which by some unspeakable way the garment of that union was woven, whereof the weaver is the Holy Ghost; and the spinner the overshadowing from on high; the wool the ancient fleece of Adam; the woof the undefiled flesh from the virgin, the weaver’s shuttle the immense grace of Him who brought it about; the artificer the Word gliding through the hearing.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“The Virgin received Salvation so that she may give it back to the centuries.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (ante A.D. 450).

“O Virgin all holy, he who has said of you all that is honorable and glorious has not sinned against the truth, but remains unequal to your merit. Look down upon us from above and be propitious to us. Lead us in peace and having brought us without shame to the throne of judgment, grant us a place at the right hand of your Son, that we may borne off to heaven and sing with angels to the uncreated, consubstantial Trinity. “ Basil of Seleucia, PG 85:452 (ante A.D. 459).

“Cease your laments; I will make myself your advocate in my Son’s presence. Meanwhile, no more sadness, because I have brought joy to the world. For it is to destroy the kingdom of sorrow that I have come into the world: I full of grace ... Then curb your tears; accept me as your mediatrix in the presence of him who was born from me, because the author of joy is the God generated before all ages. Remain calm; be troubled no longer: I come from him, full of grace.” Romanos the Singer, On Christmas 2,10-11 (ante A.D. 560).

“Raised to heaven, she remains for the human race an unconquerable rampart, interceding for us before her Son and God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Assumption 291(ante A.D. 560).

“Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, because thou didst conceive Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer of our souls.” Coptic Ostraca (A.D. 600).

“Mary the Ever-Virgin — radiant with divine light and full of grace, mediatrix first through her supernatural birth and now because of the intercession of her maternal assistance — be crowned with never ending blessings ...seeking balance and fittingness in all things, we should make our way honestly, as sons of light.” Germanus of Constantinople, Homily on the Liberation of Constantinople, 23 (ante A.D. 733).

“O, how marvelous it is! She acts as a mediatrix between the loftiness of God and the lowliness of the flesh, and becomes Mother of the Creator.” Andrew of Crete, Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity (ante A.D. 740).

“She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim. Exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.” John of Damascene, Homily on the Nativity, 9 (ante A.D. 749).

“We today also remain near you, O Lady. Yes, I repeat, O Lady, Mother of God and Virgin. We bind our souls to your hope, as to a most firm and totally unbreakable anchor, consecrating to you mind, soul, body, and all our being and honoring you, as much as we can, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles.” John of Damascene, Homily 1 on the Dormition, 14 (ante A.D. 749).

“Let us entrust ourselves with all our soul’s affection to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin: let us all, with all our strength, beg her patronage, that, at the moment when on earth we surround her with our suppliant homage, she herself may deign in heaven to commend us with fervent prayer. For without any doubt she who merited to bring ransom for those who needed deliverance, can more than all the saints benefit by her favor those who have received deliverance.” Ambrose Autpert, Assumption of the Virgin, (ante A.D. 778).

“Let us approach with confident spirit the throne of the high Priest, where he is our victim, priest, advocate and judge.” Radbert Paschasius, On the Assumption (ante A.D. 786).

“For she who brought forth the source of mercy, Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, receiving from him all things, will and through him, grant the wishes of all.” Paul the Deacon, (ante A.D. 799).

“You scatter your favors with still greater abundance since you possess more fully him who is their source and who is entirely willing to give them to us, rather you possess almost everything by yourself and you show largesse to whom you will and to him who begs it of you.” John the Geometer, Life of Mary (A.D. 989).

“May we deserve to have the help of your intercession in heaven, because as the Son of God has deigned to descend to us through you, so we also must come to him with you.” Peter Damian, (ante A.D. 1072).

“The Mother of God is our mother. May the good mother ask and beg for us, may she request and obtain what is good for us.” Anselm, Oration 7(ante A.D. 1109).

“O whoever you may be who feel yourself on the tide of this world drifting in storms and tempests rather than treading firm ground, turn not your eyes from the effulgence of this star, unless you wish to be submerged ... if she holds you, you do not fall, if she protects you, you have no fear; with her to lead you, you tire not; with her favour, you will reach your goal, conscious thus within yourself how rightly the word was spoken: ‘And the Virgin’s name was Mary.’” Bernard, Homily 2:17, Respice stellam (ante A.D. 1153).

193 posted on February 5, 2012 12:07:15 AM EST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


32 posted on 03/25/2012 1:00:32 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

**More redefinition of words to suit Catholic doctrine. Now “until” means “never”, “sister/brother” means “cousin” and “Hebrew and Greek” means “Aramaic”.**

Rephrasing your comment to be truthful, here.

More REdefinition of words to suit Catholic doctrine. Now “until” means “never”, “sister/brother” means “cousin” and “Hebrew and Greek” means “Aramaic” all from the REformation sponsored by Martin Luther.

The Catholics gave the Bible to you. You are always welcome to join us in the true and only Bible that has not been changed.

I believe I have a link about St. Jerome on his translation of the Bible that may make more sense to you than I can.


33 posted on 03/25/2012 1:02:59 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Catholic Scripture Study Bible - RSV Large Print Edition


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

34 posted on 03/25/2012 1:04:18 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

John, I believe taught Polycarp. So if you look in some of Polycarp’s writings you may find the evidence you are seeking. It is common knowledge in the Catholic Church that John, the only apostle at the foot of the Cross, was the beloved one.


35 posted on 03/25/2012 1:06:59 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

John, I believe taught Polycarp. So if you look in some of Polycarp’s writings you may find the evidence you are seeking. It is common knowledge in the Catholic Church that John, the only apostle at the foot of the Cross, was the beloved one.


36 posted on 03/25/2012 1:07:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
Hi Dan-Good Sir- That was me.

"Some time back, a verbose work was posted on FR, unattributed which i found out was really from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html, and below are my responses as it relates to this latest assertion of perpetual Marian virginity (PMV),"

Thank you for being very polite in your responses. I truly enjoy your style and manner and content view presented. No kidding. Good sir.

Here is the Url it was in the original after the first post. I like to make sure it is highlighted for quick trip to Url for anybody. Just in case you have not noticed. Sometimes hard on tablet though. LOL

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

37 posted on 03/25/2012 1:09:25 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html


38 posted on 03/25/2012 1:11:07 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

John, I believe taught Polycarp. So if you look in some of Polycarp’s writings you may find the evidence you are seeking. It is common knowledge in the Catholic Church that John, the only apostle at the foot of the Cross, was the beloved one.


39 posted on 03/25/2012 1:11:49 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Oops- I put this for the wrong post number. So sorry.

Hi Dan-Good Sir- That was me.

"Some time back, a verbose work was posted on FR, unattributed which i found out was really from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html, and below are my responses as it relates to this latest assertion of perpetual Marian virginity (PMV),"

Thank you for being very polite in your responses. I truly enjoy your style and manner and content view presented. No kidding. Good sir.

Here is the Url it was in the original after the first post. I like to make sure it is highlighted for quick trip to Url for anybody. Just in case you have not noticed. Sometimes hard on tablet though. LOL

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

40 posted on 03/25/2012 1:14:41 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

WELL PUT

AND

WELL DOCUMENTED

as usual.

Thx. Thx.


41 posted on 03/25/2012 1:15:45 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Wow! Great work!


42 posted on 03/25/2012 1:16:00 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

Just a few words as comment. Tortured, twisted, and painful attempts to make scripture mean what the CC wants it too.


43 posted on 03/25/2012 1:21:18 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

The redefinition of common words has been the basis of fitting major Catholic doctrine into the Scriptures instead of drawing an understanding from the Scriptures.

An example is the meaning attached to the common English word “begotten” or “to beget”, in other words “create”. And so the term “begotten” is dropped entirely from John 1:18 in the NAB though “begotten” appears in the Greek.
In a footnote it is explained that the incorrect reading “Son” was used along with “God” or “god” to show a filial relationship.

Thus the Catholic scholars who produced this translation of John 1:18 acknowledge their translation is incorrect yet include it in the text as though it is part of Scripture.
Why? Because it thus seems to support Catholic doctrine.


44 posted on 03/25/2012 1:30:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

That is a good work Daniell....just one thing...why is it catholics ‘want’ Mary to be elevated above what scriptures depict?

Their devotion and celebration of her is beyond what I see they give the Lord Jesus...and this is obvious to most who view all the statues, paintings, and my gosh the parades where they even put money on the statue of her....which remiinds me of pagans who celebrate before their statues... etc. of Mary.....she’s everywhere!

But why do they do this? Anyone who has a true understanding of who God is knows He doesn’t have a mother.....so it’s truly amazing she is such a Goddess to them.


45 posted on 03/25/2012 1:30:40 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

But you, as well as other members of other denominations would agree with me, that the original Bible and translations came from the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you?

Catholics have not twisted words here. I maintain that the REformation tried to REformat the meanings of some of the Gospels and other Scripture.

This REprocessing of the original facts of the original Bible don’t hold water for me. It would seem that you have a leaky sieve, right, and all Scripture is selectively sieved?


46 posted on 03/25/2012 1:31:14 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Were you most concerned with these two sections of all of that?

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

V. Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 


47 posted on 03/25/2012 1:44:30 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; daniell

Yes, Daniell always does good work and appreciated, his web site is a treasure if you haven’t been there yet. Chocked full of good information.


48 posted on 03/25/2012 1:46:30 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ForAmerica
from the article:

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

Easy, maybe becuase his sisters and brothers didn't believe in him.

I came from a family who didn't know the Lord....in my will while they were youngsters, if anything were to happen to me I did not leave the care of my children to family members, I appointed a Christian family to raise the.

So I have no problem with Jesus 's words to Mary and John....that they be family to one another.....because the family blood line we now have is in Christ....thus the "family of God"

49 posted on 03/25/2012 1:53:12 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

From the article....”But what about the verses that speak about the brothers and sisters of Jesus?..... For instance, Matthew 13:55-56: “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother named Mary, and His ‘brothers’ James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not His ‘sisters’ all with us?” .....Could Matthew be referring to Jesus’ cousins?”

Ha! Well it’s quite clear Jesus’s brothers and sisters were among them...to pull anything other then the clear meaning of this is way more than a stretch.....but common for those who use scripture to justify false teachings.

The whole point was they knew the family ,and the simple carpenter they knew didn’t meet the expectations of the “king” they imagined as the Messiah who would come...and surely wouldn’t be from the common ordinary folk they knew.

Distorting the word is a hallmark of false teachings....this is a prime example of trying to get scripture to support a teaching when it clearly does not do so by even a stretch.


50 posted on 03/25/2012 2:05:40 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson