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
Amen!
It’s an argument without substance also because most of Jesus’ disciples were of humble station in life and without a “higher” education.
Saul had probably the best education available yet he spoke of himself as “ignorant” of the truth.
So a Greek Orthodox priest can express error in the most polished of Greek language and it will still be error.
Agreed. Hence I don’t post links, perhaps some reference material, but links? No.
“but object to posting a bunch of links in response to an argument as a substitute for a response of your own.”
Look. So we are in your class . Not a free open exchange of ideas or beliefs among conservatives. It is a belief. Let’s Get off the lawyering mode. It is shown for what it is in history of the church. If we read what is presented we can understand the other view. I read your posts. I found it interesting either way.
“but object to posting a bunch of links in response to an argument as a substitute for a response of your own.”
Look. So we are in your class . Not a free open exchange of ideas or beliefs among conservatives. It is a belief. Let’s Get off the lawyering mode. It is shown for what it is in history of the church. If we read what is presented we can understand the other view. I read your posts. I found it interesting either way.
Sorry! Repeat!
So they are in error on language.
It is like someone who does not know the language but thinks he can correct with Greek dictionary. Just amazing.
“It is like someone who does not know the language but thinks he can correct with Greek dictionary. Just amazing”
Not at all! You are fluent in English but does that mean no one but a native speaker can correct your usage of the language?
The Pharisees certainly could read and understand Hebrew and had read “Honor your father and your mother...” yet they by their tradition perverted the meaning of “honor” into something quite different.
Look at the use of the word “priest”. No Christian held the office of priest in the Scriptures, so where is the justification for anyone claiming to be such?
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
That's all famous arguments. That started after the fact. 1500 years after the fact.
"The Pharisees certainly could read and understand Hebrew......"
That's not the point. Greek was shown. Someone who does not know the language is trying to define what it originally means who does not speak the language. It is put there to show what it is suppose to mean by the poster.
You know like point counterpoint in a belief.
All I did was to show that a Greek speaking people and Church see it otherwise.
Plus to judge a language from a dictionary only without knowing it is very bold to the Greek speaking people who believe otherwise. Amazing.
Agreed - nothing I said conflicts with that.
"I will go by the historical accounts than other people thousands of years later. "
Besides the variance in historical support, then upon that premise (historical authority=veracity) you have just nuked the church. The premise of the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders was that of yours, but while ordination is provided for by Scripture, it is does not provide assured veracity or infallibility or perpetuation of their office, and yet writings were established as Scripture and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as God raised up men whose authority was established by conformity to Scripture and the supernatural attestation which it reveals being given to the Truth.
The Lord Jesus Himself was “rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes” (Lk. 9:22) who, like as a true Roman Catholic would do, challenged His authority (nor those of John the Baptist) as it did not come from them, saying, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk., 11:27-33) But in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His on Scripture and the power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12) And reproved by Scripture their presumption in making the mere “tradition of the elders” to be as Scripture which it contradicted (though some Catholics actually argue it did not).
As for the Catholic premise for truth and unity, that of sola ecclesia — with the church being the supreme authority (for it claims to infallibly define what truth consists of and its meaning, and infallibly declares that it is infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula) — you also have disunity, as not only do the EOs disagree on no less an issue than papal infallibility, as well as some other interpretations of Tradition, Scripture and history, but every major cult effectively operates out of the same premise, that of its magisterium speaking infallibly, even if the term is not used. (I am aware that Rome will invoke Scripture to support itself, especially in modern times, but that interpretation only has the authority Rome gives it, and which is based upon the premise of assured infallibility, while the arguments and reasoning behind infallible decrees are not necessarily infallible themselves).
It is true that Catholics must hold to certain core truths, and are in substantial unity with each other, but they can and do being able to disagree about many things not infallibly defined, or where there is room for interpretation. And which is more substantial than one realizes, as Roman Catholics cannot even be sure how many infallible decrees there are, and little of the Bible is held to have been infallibly defined, and they have much liberty to interpret the Bible within their RC parameters.
Likewise evangelicals who hold to the supremacy of Scripture overall hold to certain core truths, and who thus example a common front against cults which deny their shared core truths, and a unity which transcends denominational lines.
They also have varying degrees of interpretation in other things, but are usually are under a magisterium which not only requires or fosters consent to certain core truths but provides general parameters effecting limits to the degrees of interpretation, especially within their own flock, whereby aberrations are manifest. And as a group the evidence testifies to more unity in core truths and Scriptural moral views than their Roman Catholic counterparts, though both are in decline.
In addition, the Roman Catholic magisterium effectively only has power of her own flock, despite claims otherwise, and the unity she effects is not necessarily effectually greater than other individual flocks.
It is also true that Catholics claim to have an assured infallible interpreter, and attack Sola Scripturists for not having one of their supreme authority (Scripture), and relying on fallible human reasoning instead (however prayerful and guided), yet Catholics do not have an assured infallible interpreter of their supreme authority (the magisterium), and can required varying degrees of interpretation, but they engage in fallible human reasoning, while their decision to submit to their assuredly infallible magisterium was itself a fallible human decision.
Thus under both models, that of sola ecclesia and Sola Scriptura you have common consent to core truths, along with formal divisions and internal variation of interpretations, the differences only being a matter of degrees.
How then is truth ascertained and established? The fact is that Scripture is the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) due to its Heavenly qualities (conflation and complementarity and power). And most writings were established as such before there was a church in Rome, and was being the standard for obedience and testing truth claims. And nowhere does it promise that the church in Rome would forever be infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals.
Nor does God make Truth so compelling to all so that rebels cannot convince themselves against the reality of God, but Truth is ascertained the same way that light-loving seeking souls were convinced of the gospel truths, that being based upon its conflation with Scripture in text and in power. For of such is the kingdom of God, not in self declaration. (1Cor. 4:20)
And which gospel and its attendant basic truths, and the preaching thereof which effects manifest regeneration, is the most critical testimony to the church of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) whose builder and maker is God, versus its institutionalized counterpart, having more religious form than life-giving relationship. And which is easy for even a believer to fall into to some degree, if they do not constantly seek to live on the front line of faith, and thus i must preach to myself as well.
You posted this twice, and I do not disagree with the use of links as per my comments, as they allow far more info potentially to be of use, and often are necessary in the interest of brevity for substantiation or supplementation or referencing, but my protestation was against the redundancy of posting links and verbose material in the absence of a response.
The meaning of a term in the Scriptures is determined by the understanding and usage of the language at that time not that of today. So what Greek speaking people of today understand as modern Greek is beside the point.
The same could be said of English or Spanish, etc.
“Plus to judge a language from a dictionary only without knowing it is very bold to the Greek speaking people who believe otherwise. Amazing.”
Amazing is the notion that being born into a language group confers expertise covering the past 2500 years of the language.
“That’s all famous arguments. That started after the fact. 1500 years after the fact.”
Then you should have no problem in pointing to one Christian called a priest in the Scriptures. Just one will do but I don’t have 1500 years to wait.
We are our own judge of scripture while we declare what the bible only reads. So do charismatics and ceasationist as do others. But still have main differences that matter.
It's a belief.
Why do you catholics feel that copying and pasting 250,000 word catholic articles somehow give your positions legitimacy?
John, that is simply another unproven polemical assertion which is contrary to the facts.
As my posts overall evidence, i seek to prove all things, and make my own arguments, and though i will use those of others if they i think they are warranted, i am rather eclectic in sources. And my "mass of words" ( post #77) evidences this, as these are my own words, and the reasoning and and arguing incorporates little from others, and is about 1200 worda shorter than your unattributed argument that my first post responded to, only to see you repost it again. And in which response i have hardly used the arguments of others (though i did quote a couple RCs).
INDEED.
Thx
warning. The guys tosses a lot of mass wording, but contradictory and well false
But it does — as i said, we can’t take today’s Western mores and apply it to that time. Jesus wouldn’t have given care of Mary to someone outside the family. This wouldn’t have been honoring His father and mother
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.