It has recently been suggested by some of our visitors that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was not established by the early Church, but rather first became pervasive during the middle of the fourth century. I felt it appropriate, especially in light of all the discussion this topic has received lately, to review just exactly what the writings of Christian antiquity do say about the subject. As will be seen, the earliest writing clearly speaking to the issue comes from the middle of the second century, less than fifty years after the death of the last apostle. There were multiple written records of the perpetual virginity of Mary between the second and fourth centuries. Even so, remember that much of the writing during that period has been lost to time, especially due to the persecutions of the Roman empire between 200 and 315 A.D., which routinely included the burning of Christian literature. It is thus amazing that even these examples survived. Moreover, the majority of writing on the subject does come from the fourth century, because that is when the heretics in the Church first began attacking the doctrine. In fact, the same thing can be said of writings on the Trinity, which also fell under attack during the fourth century. For those of you not much interested in the early fathers, I suggest you skip to the bottom of the article, which details the position of the fathers of the Reformation.
The Protoevangelium of James
And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there.
And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.’
And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth.’
And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man.’
-Protoevangelium of James 4, 7, A.D. 120.
Justin Martyr
Some writer that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man.
-Writing of Justin Martyr, circa 150 A.D. as represented by Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177.
Hegissipus
Writes that Jacob (i.e. James) and Simon, so-called Jesus' brothers, were Clopas' sons, whereas Clopas was "Joseph's brother, as Hegissipus tells us" (I.E. III, 11, 1).
-The writings of Hegissipus, circa A.D. 180, as represented by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2, 23 and 4, 8. 22.
Clement of Alexandria
Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord’s] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being Joseph’s [son].
-Hypotyposeis, circa 200 AD, as represented by Cassiodorus.
Origen
"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?"
-Commentary on John 1:6, A.D. 232.
It is talked over by many, how it happened that Jesus had these brothers, since Mariah stayed a virgin till her death. He did not have flesh brothers, nor were any born by the Virgin, nor Himself was He born from Joseph. They were called brothers of His in the law, being sons of Joseph before his wife died.
- Commentary on John 2:11, A.D. 232.
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity.
-Commentary on Matthew 2:17, A.D. 248.
Hilary of Poitiers
If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate"
-Commentary on Matthew 1:4, A.D. 354
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary.”
-Discourses Against the Arians 2:70, A.D. 360.
Also, stating, “from Mariah the ever-virgin", and writing "... and she, the one that gave birth to the Lord and ever-virgin ..."
-Speech on the Incarnation, circa A.D. 360
John Chrysostom
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. 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.'"
-Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,V:5, A.D. 370
Gregory of Nyssa
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. 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."
-On Virginity,13, A.D. 371
Epiphanius of Salamis
The Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit"
-The Man Well-Anchored 120, A.D. 374
And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled.
-Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6, A.D. 375.
Basil the Great
"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin"
-Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5, circa A.D. 379
Ieronymus
Characterizing the denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity as "weird, ill-natured, audacious and contumelious towards the common faith of the Christian world". Further noting that "Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, and all the teachers of the era of the apostles" held to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Finally and clearly stating, “She stayed a virgin both before and after the birth [of Christ].”
-De perpetua virginitate Mariae, circa A.D. 380
Jerome
[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.
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."
-The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 19-21, A.D. 383
Didymus the Blind
It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.
-The Trinity 3:4, A.D. 386
Ambrose of Milan
Mary's life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life...showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to.
-The Virgins, A.D 377
Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.
-Letters 63:111, A.D. 388
Pope Siricius I
You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king"
-Letter to Bishop Anysius, A.D. 392
Augustine
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 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.
-Of Holy Virginity, 4, A.D. 401
It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?
-Sermons 186:1, A.D. 411
Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband.
-Heresies 56, A.D. 428
Leporius
We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary.
-Document of Amendment 3, A.D. 426
Cyril of Alexandria
[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing.
-Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4, A.D. 430
Peter Chrysoslogus
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.
-Sermon 117, A.D. 432
Pope Leo I
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.
-Sermon on the Feast of the Nativity, 22:2, circa A.D. 461
Second Council of Constantinople
If anyone will not confess that the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema.
-Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2, A.D. 553
John of Damascus
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.
-Orthodox Faith, 4:14, A.D. 743
Martin Luther
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
-That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, A.D. 1523
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. . . . Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
-Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4, A.D. 1539
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. … [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
-Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39, A.D. 1562
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
-Commentary on John 7:3, circa 15??
Huldreich Zwingli
(According to G.R. Potter) He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . [In] 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
-The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, A.D. 1522, as represented by G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
-Sermon on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, A.D. 1524
Heinrich Bullinger (according to Hilda Graef)
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
-Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, A.D. 1965
John Wesley
I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
-Letter to a Roman Catholic, A.D. 1749
In Christ,
Dave
That seems to clear up that fallacy! Thanks Dave!
God bless,
Jay
It seems that Protoevangelium of James was declared heretical by Pope St. Gelasius I. (according to this and other sources). Many of your other sources are even more indirect, using words like "is supposed to be" or "some writer ... wrote," perhaps referring to that other James.
In response to Siricius I saying he is horrified at the thought that Jesus would be born in a place where a later child would be born, I would say that if there were a later child it would show that He came to be one of us in the most ordinary way that is perhaps more fully in repentance for our sins. Why else would He even choose to be born, when the pain of the human birth process is a result of Eve's sin?
Augustine, although I think he reads too much into "I know not man," does appreciate that it was Mary's own choice if she remained a virgin. According to the passages you site, it is some of the other writers beside Augustine that get carried away with their own theorizing.
Why waste so much effort defending something that, even if it is true, is not even a miracle? What is so important about whether Mary decided to have any more kids? It is a totally Man-created doctrine and distracts us from the God-given miracle of the virgin birth. That distraction is the essence of the Protestant objection to Catholicism, and its importance is seen in all the historical persecution of people who wanted to study the Bible themselves.
Jon,
As you know, since you've been involved in the discussions, the claim was made on the other article that you can prove the Church is wrong because she claimed Mary was a perpetual virgin. This is why we are proving you wrong.
Also, I find it interesting how quickly you are backing off the claims you made. In the other article, you insisted that the perpetual virginity was invented in 392 AD. Even if you try and disclaim a few of the verses, you can't ignore St. Justin Martyr, Origen or many of the others that are very clear.
Do you still contend that Mary had other children? Do you still contend that Jesus made a mistake in Matthew 16:18? The point is that the Catholic Church is the only church that stands up to the Bible's rigorous standards.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
I think Jon pointed out a valid point. He said that the doctrine was changed into ever virgin gradually. If you look at St. Ignatius' 2nd epistle to John, I think he makes it clear that James is the earthly brother of Jesus.
I have read some writings of St. Ignatius and truthfully, he never mentions Mary as ever virgin.
Jay and Dave, do you consider Mary the queen of heaven? I am just curious.
God Bless
Jeff,
St. Ignatius simply says they look similar, he never says that James is the son of Mary (no one ever does). In addition, the quotes above are pretty clear and straightforward. You would have to creatively interpret St. Ignatius and ignore everyone else!
Just as one example, look at St. Justin Martyr above. He says that Mary and Joseph remained without someone of the opposite sex (150 AD). Jon claimed this doctrine wasn't true until 392 AD (note that this is around the time the Bible was compiled). That isn't a good point, that's an error.
Do I believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven? Is this an attempt to change the subject? Or do we know believe that if this is untrue that the Church is clearly wrong (since we're proven correct on the other point)? We'll write a post on Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" to explain it and you can respond to that.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
I don't have a belief either way on whether Mary had other sons or remained a virgin. I'm simply calling attention to the fact that the doctrine of Mary as always a virgin evolved long after the other scriptures. Gelasius criticized both the Protoevangelium of James and most of the works of Origen. The relevance of the 2nd letter from Ignatius is to show that he had very limited information and his oblique comment on the virgin Mary cannot be taken as a source. I too initially misread that letter as claiming a brother, so I'm glad I didn't comment on it further at the time.
I'm not fixed on the 392 date. That's just the easliest I had seen at that point. The gradual progression is striking though.
I don't see how pointing to Justin Martyr actually helps your point. As I said before, your earlier quote from Justin is not an assertion by him about Mary. He seems to be mostly known for writing along the line of
"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"
Since Eve did not remain a virgin, the above is hardly a claim for Mary having remained a virgin.
I'm not the only one who believes that Matthew 16:18 does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Orthodox believe that the true church was split in 1009 over the words "and the Son" being added to the creed. An interesting essay on the other differences between the Orthodox and Roman churchs is here. One of those differences is the Immaculate Conception, which that author ascribes to difficulties that the Roman Catholic Church had because of their concept of all people inheriting guilt from Adam and Eve. Regarding that guilt, it seems that Protestants still follow the Roman teaching, and the Greek Orthodox stay closer to the scripture on that point.
Jay,
You accuse Jon of changing arguments, yet in your defense of Mary you constantly changed the rationale. I won't repeat, but if anyone is interested you can go to the section Answering Protestants and see the exchange between SandT and Jay,Joe and Dave.
At this point Jay, its pointless for me to respond. All I can say is that if you believe what you believe to be the truth, fine. Either way, one of us will be wrong. I'll just wait until then.
Be blessed
Jon,
You certainly raise a lot of points in response to such a humble post. In all honesty, I would rather respond to issues re immaculate conception, the Great Schism, original sin, etc. in other articles. The point here is that the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity was a common belief in the early Church. I would like to make several points on this issue.
First, you are very correct to note the heretical nature of the Protoevangelium of James, which at one point in time was labeled "The Gospel of Peter." Of course, I am not aware of any dogmatic statement declaring the document heretical, but clearly it is not gospel. The same thing could be said of the writings produced by many of the listed authors. While they are all considered fathers of the early church, and giants of Christian theology, not even the Popes were speaking with an infallible voice in the quotes I have provided (with the sole exception of the Second Council of Constantinople). And in other writings, a few of these authors even espoused what are today known to be heretical doctrines.
But that is totally beside the point. What I am illustrating is the absolutely pervasive character of this belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. Regardless of its correctness (which our Protestant brethren will undoubtedly continue to deny), it is obviously something that was taken for granted. If fact, probably so much so that there was nary a dispute about the issue for 300 years. That would explain the fact that there is so little documentation of that belief during the earliest years of the Church. The Protoevangelium and Justin both clearly show that the belief existed, but the lack of any disputations shows just how uncontroversial it was. Again, however, note that the very same thing could be said of the Trinity, a dogma that, if we are being honest, the Scripture is not entirely clear on. And so, in that frame of mind, and particularly in reference to the Trinity, it is nothing short of astonishing that when the issue was at last called into question (by individuals who professed "sola scriptura" such as the Arians), it was with almost a single voice that the faithful responded. To quote Basil, "The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin." By constrast, the Arian controversy over whether Christ really was God nearly tore the Church asunder.
Second, I take great comfort in hearing the words of the giants of the Reformation. From 1500 (Luther) to 1750 (Wesley), the doctrine of perpetual virginity was a staple even of Protestants. Zwingli's comment is particularly fascinating because it reveals his deep devotion to our Mother's chastity. He would never be content to simply say that it is a doctrine for which he is unconcerned. In his estimation, it is positively impious to think anything different. And that Godfather of American Protestantism, Calvin, sums things up nicely: "No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." Even for these dissenters, the doctrine of perpetual virginity is one on which there really can be no disagreement.
Third, despite your efforts to marginalize Justin's quote, it does nothing to take away from the fact that someone in the time of Tiberius and Augustus (i.e. the time of Christ's birth) writes that Mary remained a virgin. Your suggestion that this could be the Protoevangelium is misguided since the document was not even written until Justin's lifetime. Moreover, Justin's reference is actually not even in the Protoevangelium, which only states that Mary was pledged as a temple virgin and that Joseph already had children; it says nothing of Mary's virginity after Christ's birth. Thus, Justin is clearly referring to some other writer. The quote you provide from Justin is nice, but of course it is completely unrelated to this issue.
Fourth, I again return to your claim that the perpetual virginity is not an important issue. Augustine, of whom the Protestant churches are quite fond and whom you cite favorably, declares "Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband." Evidently it was so important for him that to disagree was to fall into heresy. Luther's comments make it very clear that to be associated with such heresy was a great shame! That hardly seems unimportant.
Fifth and finally, this issue is not one that Catholics go around preaching. We do not approach Protestant claiming that they must repent of their antidicomarite ways or suffer Hell. It is quite the reverse. This issues is used by Protestants in a fallacious attempt to show how far the Church has departed from Scriptures. This charge has been leveled by other visitors on numerous occasions. Here, I am simply showing the erroneous nature of the position to the extent that even the greatest of their own theologians were adamant in upholding this dogma, and did so under the banner of sacred Scripture! And such a position was in reality challenged only during one very short period of Church history by such a small and uninformed group of people that the entirety of the Christian faithful extinguished this heresy in a very short period of time. To say that Scripture is contrary is to impugn every good Christian mind for at least 1600 years, including the Protestant fathers. That is nothing short of extraordinary arrogance combined with woeful ignorance. I really hope that the thundering voice of one and half millenia of Church history, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, will cause the attackers among our readers to very seriously reconsider just how closely the Church is alligned with Scripture on this issue. Only an irrevant and self-absorbed mind would refuse to heed the witness so many of the faithful. Disagree if you like, but do not persist in labeling the teaching of the Church anti-Scriptural (not necessarily you personally, Jon).
In Christ,
Dave
I am just curious, were the disciples of Christ the early church? Was not the church of Berea part of the early church?
You keep saying that the early church did this or that. Did the disciples of Christ practice or preach about Mary's perpetual virginity or her being a Queen of Heaven?
Jay how can you explain that Mary is the queen of heaven and read Jeremiah 7:18. Then go on to say that the Bible supports the doctrine of Mary?
Worshipping a Queen in Heaven angered God. I'll quote the verse for you...
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18
Nelson,
The queen of heaven is an issue for another post (we've probably already done one on it), but suffice to say that your reference to Jeremiah is understandable though of course mistaken. The "queen of heaven" referred to there is, as Jeremiah states, another god whom the Israelites worshipped. The Catholic Church does not permit the worship of Mary. But let's do try to stay on point.
Your reference to the disciples is not well-taken. They did not teach on abortion. They did not teach on polygamy. They did not teach on drug use (note that I said "use" not "abuse"). They did not teach on the Trinity. They did not teach on eugenics. They did not teach on euthanasia. And they did not teach on Mary. Yet you will accept Church teachings on each of the former while rejecting the latter. And to make yourself feel better you justify the former by claiming that they can be inferred from Scripture. Again, when we respond that teachings on Mary can be inferred, you will jump through hoops to show that an opposite inference is preferable. So here I have presented you 1600 years of actual teaching on the subject (i.e. no inferences needed), and all you can say is that the disciples didn't mention it. Exactly where did Christ say to listen only to the disciples?
To quote Christ, "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17) You will not listen to 1600 years worth of the Church. And sadly, you can point to no statement by any of the disciples that Mary did not remain a virgin (other than complex and convoluted interpretations). I will stand with all those who have come before me, firm in the Church against whom the gate of Hell have never prevailed.
In Christ,
Dave
P.S. Thank you for being passionate enough about the Christian faith to take the time to post. I know I don't often show appreciation for those adherents of the Protestant faith to which I owe so much of my development--but your passion is encouraging!
Dave,
My questioning the importance of whether Mary choose to remain a virgin was not intended as a rhetorical question. I haven't seen any mention of why the Church fathers believed that other than they felt more comfortable in the belief. To me that is less loving to Mary than simply trusting that whatever choice she made was best.
The Protoevangelium of James, and much later the RCC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, impose upon her a doctrine that she may have not in fact followed. If those statements are based on actual knowledge given by the Holy Spirit then fine, but I have no way of knowing that because of all the errors through history that have been committed by churches.
Jon,
Fair enough. I think the importance of the issue has to do with the role Mary played, which of course is ultimately why Protestants are bound to have such a problem accepting perpetual virginity. However, perpetual virginity establishes the fact that Mary was not only uniquely used by God, but was also uniquely connected to God. First, through the grace that filled her in the immaculate conception. Second, through the union between her and the Christ child in her womb. And third, through the union that she had with the Holy Spirit. It is this third aspect that necessitates perpetual virginity for it bespeaks a marital relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit. That is why Catholics speak of St. Joseph as her guardian, and Scripture speaks of him as her "betrothed spouse." One of the authors quoted above used the word "putative" spouse, which is a legal concept. In any event, it all points to Mary's role as the only woman in history who was reserved from birth to be united to God alone, and that in a marital way. "Mary's choice", as you put it, is really like the choice of abortion. The only choice is between sin and purity. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. It would have been akin to (not identical to) adultery for her to have slept with a man, even her guardian spouse.
Of course all of this gets back to Mary's role as the ark of the new covenant (and just like the original ark, the new ark is a part of creation, not God) and the Queen Mother (Jesus=king, Mary=king's mother, Mary=Queen Mother), or Queen of Heaven if you prefer. This places her in a special role of bringing petitions to Christ, though of course one need not go through Mary in prayer. Nonetheless, like it or not, even Protestants go through the mother of Christ (which is Mary), since without His mother, Christ cannot offer Himself for our sins... period. Additionally, Mary is held up as the goal for non-divine humans to aspire. An example of perfect obedience and submission. The new Eve just as Christ is the new Adam. And more importantly, the prefiguration and archtype of the Church, Christ's holy virgin bride.
I hope this gives you some understanding of why it was important. I would be interested to know of any Church dogmas that have been shown to be in error.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
What are Christ's biggest commandments? Love thy neighbor and love God with all your heart. If you follow these two, would you want to kill? Would you believe that there is a need to improve on God's work? I already read the discussion on polygamy and I believe that if we are to follow the example of church leaders then we are also to be monogamous as well. This is also taught by the disciples. You have to stop getting so caught up in the letter of the word. Apply scripture spiritually. Is abortion the same as killing? Of course it is. While the bible does not mention ABORTION in particular, it still teaches against the very essence of abortion....murder. Let's please be intellectually honest.
Nelson,
I know exactly what you mean, but you are really being very simplistic. According to you the abortion issue is obvious. Yet there are conservative Baptists in one of my Bible studies that think abortion is not a "Christianity test" if you will, simply because a prohibition on it does not appear in Scripture. And from a sola scriptura perspective, it is a solid point. The fact is that abortions were rather common in the years of the early Church. Yet neither Christ nor the apostles spoke directly or even indirectly (by talking about when life begins) about the issue. You have all chastised me so many times that if something was important, Christ would have mentioned it or at least the apostles. It is you who need to be intellectually honest here. Christ did not mention abortion, suicide, euthanasia, and the other things I referred to. Nor did his disciples. The same can be said of infant baptism, an issue that has been the source of bitter divide among Protestants. If the Bible was supposed to be the sole source of all answers, why not just clearly give the answer in the Bible? By which of course I mean actually addressing the issue rather than forcing us to jump through inferential hoops. Your position is self-contradictory because it is so evident that Christ and the apostles most definitely did not seek to address every issue that would face Christians. That is one of the things that the Church exists for.
As with all things, this dengenerates into a discussion of sola scriptura. A visitor recently suggested that the practice of annulment was just divorce gussied up in religious garb. The point is actually well-taken in practice. And it is a point that can be applied to the doctrine of sola scriptura. When you see Protestant teachings on original sin, baptism, euthanasia, abortion, polygamy, etc. ad infinitum, sola scriptura is merely tradition gussied up in Reformation language. So again, I will stand with all those who have come before me, firm in the Church against whom the gate of Hell have never prevailed.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
I am not a baptist nor am I familiar with their teachings. All I know is that whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, or Non Denominatial, your doctrine still must be in agreement with Scripture.
If a baptist came to me and said that the Bible does not teach that abortion is wrong, I would tell that Baptist that he or she is wrong. I am telling you that it is important to Christ because he summed up all the commandments into 2 commandments. Love God with all your heart, and love thy neighbor. If you love God, would you kill? Is abortion a form of ending a life? Yes it is? Once again, while the Bible is not specific on abortion, it still addresses it through the commandment not to kill. Same with substance abuse. While alchohol or drug abuse is not mentioned, intoxication AKA drunkeness is. Just look to Romans 13:13.
It does not matter what a religion says or what an individual says. The bottom line is does it agree with the word of God?
There is no gussying up about it. God covered it all in His word, the Holy Scriptures:)
GOD BLESS
Jeff,
Your interpretation is your own. God did not give it to you. You have no apostolic calling. And when you say that abortion is a form of ending life, you speak for yourself, not for God. The Scripture does not say that anywhere. The problem with your perspective Jeff is that you lack perspective. You sit in your 21st century world, grab hold of writings that were put to paper 1900 years ago establishing the mysteries of God, and arrogantly proclaim that it is you who can discover their true meaning. With your head buried in the sand, you claim that these "truths are self-evident" even if the majority of Christianity disagrees with you. Jeff, 200 years from now most Protestants will agree that polygamy is not wrong, and they will point back to people like you and arrogantly declare that you were so blinded by your own Traditions and read your own legalistic requirements into Scripture. By contrast, I stand in the Church that has not abandoned its dogmas in 2000 years.
The Episcopalians have their own way, Lutherans have theirs, Baptists have theirs, evangelicals have theirs, and it all boils down to 1 billion ways of interpreting Scripture. That is sheer madness and I will tell you right now that it is not of God, for He is not the author of chaos but of order. That is Scripture. Your tradition makes you jump through hoops to explain away John 20:21-23, a passage whose meaning is not only obvious, but was also unquestioningly accepted for 1500 years! Your claim to sola scriptura is false because you yourself do not practice it; what you do is more accurately described as "Scripture Jeff's way". Your claim to self-evident meanings is false because so many who claim the same thing interpret the Scripture so radically different. You have co-opted Scripture to support rebellion, and unfortunately you refuse to climb out of the hole of time and place in which you sit to even realize that such is the case.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
If you want to call me arrogant for believing the Bible to be God's Word and for believing it to be instructions for the church, then so be it.
You accuse me of making up the definition of abortion. But here is the Webster Merriam dictionary definition.
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
Does God create all life? Yes
When a woman is pregnant, is that life that is made? Yes.
Despite what you believe Dave, I did not invent the definition of abortion. According to Merriam Websters however, it is an action that results in death of an embryo. An action that results in death of a life. That my friend is murder. God said THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Did he not Dave?
You are trying to discredit the Bible. Don't you understand it is God's word? I am not the only "Protestant" who believes the Bible's stance on abortion or euthanasia. They both are forms of killing, which breaks the commandments of the Lord.
I have 2 questions for you Dave.
1. Are abortion and euthansia forms of killing?
2. Does command against killing?
A simple yes or no answer would suffice to each of these questions.
God bless
Jeff,
The question is: how can you know your interpretation is correct? How can you condemn others - for example the Jehovah's Witnesses - when they suggest their interpretation is correct? I think a passage from Acts is important:
This is the question presented; how can we be sure our interpretation is correct? Catholics can know, since our interpretation is based upon the Church that Christ formed (Matt 16:18) to interpret the Bible (note that Philip above is a bishop). The church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and offers us the "manifold wisdom of God" (Eph 3:8-10).
Why did God form a Church?
God bless,
Jay
Jeff,
I am going to try to break this down. I understand that you come from a different perspective, Jeff, but please try to understand the heart of my point.
Abortion is murder. I believe that. The Bible teaches me that murder is wrong. However, the Bible does not teach that the fetus or embryo is a human life. Rather, the Church teaches me this fact and I accept the Church's authority do so. But, you cannot find this teaching in Scripture. Just try to find it in there; you may find support for the idea and inferences, but they are vague at best. Now, there are two subpoints here.
First, Webster's definition of abortion has nothing to do with the Bible. Moreover, Webster's definitions were developed using English words and even then not until the 19th century. So from your sola scriptura perspective, Webster's really has absolutely no authority. Wouldn't you agree? The grand point here, Jeff, is that language is malleable and transient. It rarely has identical meanings across translations and even more rarely retains the same meaning across the years. Sola scriptura wrongly assumes that language and its meanings do not change. Linguistics is an unbelievably complex issue, and one that presents serious difficulties for sola scriptura.
Second, Webster's says nothing about the nature of embryonic life. In truth, a mole on your neck, a wart on your hand, or a tumor in your body are all "life". That is they are made up of living cells. Moreover, gorillas, dolphins, cows, and chickens are all forms of sentient life. Now I may be assuming too much here, but I suspect that you do not find the termination of any of these forms of life offensive. Considering that neither Webster's nor the Bible identifies human life as beginning at conception, your interpretive mode of Scripture has a very serious problem when faced with your position on abortion. In other words, your position on abortion contains an assumption that simply cannot be justified using only Scripture: the human soul enters the body upon conception. You also make one further assumption that is not supported by Scripture: the termination of human life in the womb is murder. On this last point consider that killing people in war or self-defense is not murder. Killing violators of the law was not murder. Why would killing the fetus that occupies the female body without permission constitute murder? My point here is simply that you must make assumptions.
Jeff, your arrogance has nothing to do with your faith in Scripture. It has to do instead with your position that you are capable of independantly and correctly interpreting Scripture. More troublesome is the fact that there are so many "Christians" who disagree with you, and yet as Jay points out you have absolutely no authority with which to say they are wrong. Ultimately, you are locked in disagreement with people who interpret the Scripture differently, and there is no way you can prove your point. You say one thing and vehemently argue that Scripture demonstrates your point. They say the opposite and make the same claim. So when someone from the world comes along, what can you offer them to show them which of you is right? When a non-believer says "Should I pick the Mormons or the Protestants?", what can you possibly tell them? The Mormons will say that Scripture says thus and so, and you will counter that Scripture says this and that, and neither of you will have an ounce of legitimacy because neither of you have any apostolic ability to interpret Scripture. Jeff, you cannot simply avoid the issue by saying, "I will show them the Scriptures!" I know many an astute Mormon who can show you so many Scriptures it will knock your socks off. With each of you parsing through Scriptures like pros, who really knows which one of you is right?
Jeff, I really want you to think about this before you answer, because so far your responses have totally missed the point. I thought about this single issue for two years before I finally joined the Church. It is not something that is so easily dismissed if you will simply hear what I am saying.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
I amazed at the fact that you are trying to discredit God and give credit to man.
That is basically what you are doing. Read what you are typing Dave. I know that most Catholics do not agree with you.
Your argument is just outright silly. You know very well that God addressed man killing man when He said thou shalt not kill. Why do you bring up animals? Of course we can kill animals for food. God gave man dominion over the creatures of the earth. The mention of Flipper in this discussion is quite humorous.
"Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3).
If you love God with all your heart would you throw away a gift?
How about Ecc 11:5
"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things"
That speaks of life in the womb Dave.
Dave, I don't disagree with my Catholic brothers on everything. I believe that abortion is wrong, and I can look to Scripture to verify.
The scripture above shows that what is inside a womb is life. Other scripture shows that the life inside a womb has a destiny. Just look to Our Lord and Savior as an example.
How can you deny that the concept of what is a womb is not life? God clearly contradicts your statement, that the Bible does not teach that the embryo or fetus is a human life.
You accuse me of misinterpreting the Bible...but even the Catholic church teaches that the BIBLE teaches against abortion. You can check http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
Why Dave do you insist on discrediting the word of God?
God Bless
Dave,
I recall speaking with a Catholic priest a few years ago. He said he didn't like Protestantism because it was dead intellectually. He preferred the ability of Catholicism to adopt to modern times. Your and my preferrence for 2000 year old dogma is at odds with a large number of American Catholics and Protestants alike.
I'm struck by this statement of a person who rediscovered orthodox teaching after years of liberalism. It seems that our Lord has enough trust in us to use our faculties to come back to him. That shows his glory more than yet more centuries of blind obedience. Your 1500 years of harmony was ended when ordinary people were allowed to read the Bible. Part of loving our neighbors is to let them receive the Spirit. In John 20:21-23, Jesus is speaking to his disciples. Doesn't that include us?
(A link in an earlier post of mine about Immaculate Conception is incorrect. It should be this.)
Jon,
The article was very interesting, and I really encourage everyone to read it. Very inspiring. Yes, there is no question that God comes to us personally. He has poured out His Spirit on all men, just as the prophet proclaimed. And, aided by the Spirit, God can use our faith and reason to guide us to the truth.
I also enjoyed the article because this woman illustrates how God led her to His Church, and once there she realized that submission was required. This is so key. Once we come to the Church founded by Christ, we must submit ourselves for the unity of the Body. The term "blind obedience" is loaded and unfair. The reality is that obedience founded on Truth is never blind. On the other hand, obedience that is anything less than complete is really not obedience at all. Christ, calls us to obey. In fact, the words "obey" and "obedience" are used nearly forty times in the New Testament alone. Jon, you are right to point out the problem with modern Catholicism. The Church's ranks are filled with many disobedient dissenters and, frankly, unbelievers. (Though I would add a caveat that the priest's statement could be construed as the ability of the Church to respond to issues not existing in Christ's time such as eugenics rather than a reference to assaulting Church dogma.) However, no matter how the Church is persecuted or co-opted, Christ has guaranteed us that the gates of Hell will never overcome His Bride. Case in point can be made using an article I wrote last month, Authority and Dissent in the Church Type
There is a real problem when you state that harmony ended when people were allowed to read the Bible. When you think about that statement, it really means that chaos entered Christianity upon individuals reading the Bible. I will simply rest on saying that God is the God of order, not chaos. Remember that the Bible was read in Mass everyday even during the middle ages. And though not always read in the vernacular, by the time of Luther the Church had translated Scripture into all of the major European languages, including Italian, French, Spanish, German (several times over), and various Slavic and Scandanavian languages. But of course the dissemination of Bibles to the public was an invention made possible only by Guttenberg's printing press and fiercely opposed by the Church. Considering the immediate destruction of Church "harmony", the reason for this opposition is clear, though somewhat misguided perhaps.
As for John 20:21-23, to say that he is speaking to us gives you and I the power to retain or forgive the sins of others. Notice the use of the word "retain" also translated as "do not forgive". I have heard this explained away as, "Jesus was giving us the power to profess to others that He had forgiven them." There are so many levels on which this does not make sense, but none more so than that Jesus explicitly gives the disciples the power to not forgive. How exactly does that fit in with spreading the Gospel? Additionally, it is so crucial to see that Christ breaths on His disciples (and only those 11) and says receive the Holy Spirit. This has confused Protestants for centuries and created all kinds of interesting doctrines. Calvary Chapel where my dad and brother teach, holds that combined with the Holy Spirit's work on Pentecost, this breathing shows that there are two different baptisms of the Holy Spirit! To my dad's credit, he rejects this idea as not supported anywhere in Scripture. But he confesses his own ignorance as to why Christ gives an early Holy Spirit gift. For Catholics, this is so easy. First Christ tells the disciples only, "I am sending you even as the Father has sent me." Thus, just as the Father gave Him all authority in Heaven and on Earth, so He is passing that authority to His disciples, the leaders of the Church. Then, to empower them for the task, He grants them a special portion of His Spirit to equip them with discernment. Finally, He gives them the power to forgive or retain the sins of others, and further promises that their decisions will be honored in Heaven (i.e. not just on earth). When seen as a special grant of authority, the whole episode makes perfect sense. And then immediately thereafter He takes Peter aside and gives Him alone a unique command to "feed my lambs." He offers Peter reconciliation (three affirmances to undo his three denials) and gives him the head position of the Church on earth. But of course accompanying this role in persona Christi, Peter must also accept Christ's fate, and is told in a roundabout way that he will suffer the same death as his Lord. The entire ending of John tracks perfectly with Matthew 16:18 and Acts chapter 15, as well as the rest of the Scripture.
Anyway, thanks for the post, Jon.
In Christ,
Dave
By the way, to those reading Jeff's previous comment, I will simply correct Jeff's misrepresentation of my position and leave it at that. I never seek to contradict or discredit Scripture, nor do I think abortion is okay. It is a grave evil that should be eradicated in the most agressive way possible. The Bible absolutely provides much support for this position. My only statement is that the Bible alone cannot irrefutably justify this position, and Jeff's quotations really serve to show this fact. The teaching of Christ's Church is NOT the teaching of men, just as the Bible is not the writing of men: both are of God who inspires these men through His Holy Spirit.
Jeff, I'm sorry that we couldn't connect in dialogue here. Best wishes.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
Your words were "the Bible does not teach me that am embryo or fetus is a human life."
You went on to say that the RCC teaches you that.
I merely showed you scripture which shows that life does indeed exist and is already predestined while in the womb. Even with Sampson, before he was even conceived, God had a destiny for him. Life begins with God. I have no children on earth yet, but I know that God has them for me. My children have a destiny in God. So if God considers them a life before conception, is it farfetched to think that he considers them life after conception?
Your stance was that the Bible clearly does not teach against the concept of abortion. My stance was that it clearly does.
Lastly to Jay and Dave, I am guided and taught, by the church. It may not be the RCC, but it is the church. The Scriptures are to be used for teaching and reproof. My pastors can teach me with Holy Scripture, and I can always verify if what they are saying is true by looking to Scripture.
The crux of your argument is that my stance is that if the Bible does not teach it, than it is not of God or Christ. So in order to validate your stance you come up with items that are not mentioned in the Bible. Such as abortion, eugenics or euthanasia. Then you will say that the Bible does not CLEARLY teach on these topics. Then you will go on to credit the RCC on teaching about these topics that were not in the Bible. Your belief is that the RCC clearly defined that abortion is wrong, therefore the RCC defined that Mary was a virgin forever. Or that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, or that Mary is to be prayed to.
But my argument to you is that Scripture indeed shows that abortion is wrong. If you could show me Scripture which clearly shows that Mary is to be prayed to or that she is the Queen of Heaven, then your point would be validated. However all you have done to this point is quote men.
So you do not misinterpret my stance, I will summarize them very quickly.
1. I believe the Bible to be God's Word, instructions for the church, and authoritative on matters concerning the church.
2. I believe that Church is the body of believers in Christ, I believe that the Church serves God's Word and is to spread this Word so that God's glory may be manifested.
3. I submit to my pastors, but I can always double check if they speak the truth by checking the Bible.
4. I believe that God speaks to the heart of men, and if you pursue Him, His Spirit will guide you into truth.
5. The Bible is God's word, the church adheres to the Bible and must agree with the Bible.
Any questions?
Be Blessed
Dave, Joe and Jay,
I always read you guys posting about how you stand with the TRUE CHURCH that Jesus established.
Now I believe, like brother Jeff, that the church is the body of believers in Christ.
My question to you is, what makes Roman Catholicism different from Protestants.
Give me 5 items that you believe that separates you from Protestants.
God Bless
SandT,
I'll give you one: apostolic authority. No Protestant denomination claims it. No Protestant denomination could claim it. I will go a step further and say that any Catholic who denies this fundamental position of the Church is not really a Catholic at all.
If you do not understand this term, it means that the clegy of the Church stand in persona Christi. They are collectively endowed with a unique and special portion of the Holy Spirit that allows them, when acting in unity, to speak the infallible words of God. Apostle literally means "one who is sent". Catholic means, among other things, "by the whole" which refers to the doctrine of the Church being announced and developed by the whole group of apostles (i.e. bishops) rather than by a single individual.
Apostolic authority is why the Catholic Church has not abandoned a single dogma in 2000 years. She speaks with a unified voice, and when She does so, She actually speaks the true Word of the Lord and so does it without error. That, in a nutshell, is the difference.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
Ok, so you believe in Apostolic authority. That is fine. Paul had apostolic authority. However, when he was preaching to the Bereans, they still checked Scripture to check if everything Paul had said was true. That is seen in Acts 17:11.
You like to talk about the early Church fathers, lets see what St. Augustine has to say about this.
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (De bono viduitatis, 2)
How about Basil?
BASIL
'The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign'
Moralia 72:1
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
'How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?'
Glaphyra on Genesis, PG 69,53c
CYRIL of JERUSALEM
'In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.
Catechetical Lectures 4,17.
These are the early church fathers who even give authority to Scripture.
I am not saying The Bible is the only source of revelation. However it is the only thing I know to be infallible. We are warned in the Bible about false doctrines. How can we know that they are false? The answer is in the Scriptures, that is how.
God bless
Thanks, SandT. It is certainly good for you to consider what the early fathers said. Now all that is left is to understand what they actually believed. For instance, Augustine, Basil, and your other friends all believed in confession to a priest, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the veneration of icons and relics, Purgatory, etc. and so on. So accepting everything they said about Scripture, it is clear that they nonetheless submitted to the teachings of the Church on all of the doctrines that you reject as non-Scriptural.
You see then that simply because all things must be supported by Scripture does not mean that they must be explicitly taught in Scripture. And above all else, it most assuredly does not mean that where two reasonable inferences are possible (i.e. perpetual virginity or other children) we are free to choose what seems best to us. On the contrary, that is rebellion. Simply because we think Scripture is more accurately interpreted our way is a terrible reason for rejecting the Church. If you would sit down and read "On Christian Doctrine" by Augustine, he is patently clear that Biblical interpretation is a high skill, not something that should be left to the unschooled. This comports perfectly with St. Peter in II Pet. 3:15-16.
The Bereans checked Paul against the Scripture. Yet the Scripture said nothing about angels, bishops, eating pork, the resurrection of the dead, etc. and so forth. Paul taught all of these things. Clearly the Bereans did not reject those things simply because they did not appear in Scripture. Instead, Scripture was used simply as a check against fallacy. In other words, was any of Paul's teachings contrary to Scripture. In the case of eating pork, the answer would even appear to be yes, yet the Bereans accepted Paul's apostolic authority.
All of this shows that it is your understanding of how these groups applied Scripture that is flawed, not the Church's position on various issues. I'll pause here for comment.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
Did you read what Cyril of Jerusalem wrote?
Scroll up and check.
Be blessed.
And yet my words still apply with equal force. You might try actually reading the Catechetical Lectures, because your own positions are way out of line with what they contain.
More to the point, you said you accept apostolic authority. Yet your own position reveals the truth of what you believe (i.e., you are supremely qualified to determine what Scripture says, not the apostolic authority instituted by God). SandT, that is a rejection of apostolic authority. Answer me this: is there any person on earth or group of people that speaks on behalf of God? I am talking about living people here, so please don't try to be cute. If so, please give me names.
In Christ,
Dave
So what did Cyril mean Dave?
Please enlighten me, because it sounds like he is saying to check Scripture to verify if something is true or not? So what did they mean?
As far who represents God on this earth, no one does, after all mankind is flawed and God is perfect. But if you want to know who spreads His message, that would be the church.
I never said I believe in apostolic authority, particularly your belief. I don't believe that Christ ordained a pope to be the "god head" on earth. There is only one head of the church, and that is Christ. Back to the original question Dave, before we go off on a tangent, what did Basil, St. Augustine Cyril of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem mean?
St. Augustine said the Holy Scripture fixes the rule of doctrine. What did he mean?
What did Basil mean when he said to reject that which does not agree with Scriptures?
It is clear that these early church fathers did not look at themselves as equal in authority to the Scripture. So what did they mean Dave?
Dave,
There are some things that are clearly foreign to the Bible. Worshipping Mary is definitely one of them. Yes Mary was blessed, yes Mary was obedient, yes Mary gave birth to our Lord and Savior. However, she is NEVER mentioned as Mother of all, queen of heaven, and worship of Mary is also foreign to Scripture. It is not that complicated. God does not teach the worship of Mary. Matter of fact, does Jesus ever call Mary mother? My point is that Mary was an obedient servant of the Lord. Nothing more nothing less. I believe that she would rebuke the Catholic church for worshipping her.
Anyways, the whole concept for Mary is foreign to Scripture. Here is my challenge to you. GO into your closet, and pray. Pray to the Lord, that He gives you wisdom and understanding. Ask for strength to be humble, and drop your Catholic tag, just be a Christian. Forget all the rituals that come with religion, then look into the Bible and see if worship of Mary is truly supported in the Scriptures.
The Bible clearly shows the downside of polygamy, the murder in abortion and euthanasia. It does not show the worship of Mary. Show me, show me what Scripture is used to support Mary. THe early church fathers instructed you to test what was taught with Scriptures. I am asking you to test using Scriptures.
Be blessed
Jeff,
Perhaps you are new to the site, so I will reiterate something. My family and I have just recently been reconciled to the Catholic Church. My father was a Protestant minister. My younger brother is a pastor at Calvary Chapel. And that is what I always wanted to be as a kid. At thirteen, I had already read straight through the entire Bible. None of us ever had "tags". We were non-denominational Christians who avoided such tags like the plague. I preached the "true" Scripture to Catholics for years. It was only when I accidentally ran into a wonderful Catholic man in law school who deeply loved the Lord and knew his faith backwards and forwards that I came into trouble. Try as I might, there were too many Scriptures that agreed with him and that I could not counter. I fought him for four years, always thinking that I would convert him to the truth and save his soul. The Holy Spirit had other ideas, and in the end it was me that needed the saving. Now I offer my meager talents in service of my Lord to bring the Truth of His Body and Bride to a Protestant country that does not even know what that means. When you tell me to investigate Scripture my wayward friend, you are preaching to the choir... and a former member of your own choir at that!
As for Mary, go read Revelation 12 and John 19:25-27. Of course you will explain it away just like a liberal Protestant would explain away the vague Biblical position on abortion; that is to be expected. No matter how many verses I give you, they will not bring you to the light unless you are actually open to the idea that the Bible may mean something other than what you have always believed. Happy hunting.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
You refuse to be intellectual.
Lets take the abortion issue.
I pointed out Scripture that shows that life is in the womb. I pointed out Scripture that shows that before conception, God has a destiny for everyone, such as Sampson. I pointed out Scripture that shows that a child is a gift from God. Add these Scriptures to the commandment thou shalt not kill, one can see how abortion is wrong. God gave us brains Dave. We are not dumb.
I looked at the Scripture you pointed out.
Jn 19:25 Jesus said "dear woman, here is your son" and to his disciple he said "Here is your mother"
Revelations 12 recalls the story of Mary giving birth to Jesus. It also talks of a woman who was to give birth to a male child. This woman was given safety by God. Even though the devil tried to drown her, he could not.
I am summarizing the Scripture, if you feel I left out any details, please let me know.
Dave, you point out these Scriptures without explaining how they support the worship of Mary, or how Mary is the queen of Heaven.
How do you extrapolate from Jn19:25 and from Rev 12, that Mary is to be worshipped, that she is the queen of heaven, that her body was assumed, or that she was sinless.
I am not being liberal Dave, I am just being logical.
Be blessed
Jeff I believe that is what dave is talking about. You said, "Dave, you point out these scriptures without explaining how they support the worship of Mary, or how Mary is the queen of Heaven." It is you who aren't being intellectual and it is you who are being closed minded. Catholics DO NOT WORSHIP Mary. That is a misconception and the first thing you have to do, being open minded, is admit that we don't worship Mary. Worshiping means to admire someone as a God and give them praise and God like powers, but once again Catholics don't do that. What Catholics DO do is pray to Mary. Your question should not be where is the biblical evidence for worshipping Mary, but where is the evidence for praying to her. Believe it or not, the evidence from the Bible shows that there is nothing wrong with praying to the dead and asking them to pray for you (which is what Catholics do to Mary). Obviously the prayers of the righteous and holy carry more weight than other prayers and we know that all the saint's, holy and righteous in heaven, prayers carry weight with God. That is why Catholics pray to the saints (one of which is Mary) and ask for them to pray for us. Catholics do not only pray to Mary, they pray to Jesus / God and then pray to Mary and the Saints in addition asking them to pray for us because or odds of being forgiven, ect. improve when its not only our prayers for ourself God hears but prayers from the most holy saints in addition. As for the biblical evidence for this, it has been beat to death in several post on this website. Please go to http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/cat_mary.html and read the articles on Mary Worship, Praying to Mary, and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. These should help clear up the way you view a Catholic's relationship with Mary, and the Biblical evidence for it.
Tom Ace,
That is pretty funny....Pet Detective.
Catholics adore Mary. This is a fact you cannot deny. Maybe that is not what your religion intended, but it is a fact. You go to Latin countries and you will find the have a day of the virgin. Do you know what they do? They dress their baby daughters like Mary. They do this to honor her. Also many a catholics do bow down to a statue of Mary. I don't do that when I pray with people.
In addition prayers to Mary entail asking her for her mercy, and that she is your hope.
I saw a prayer to the archangel Michael asking for protection.
This is worship my friend. Maybe you don't realize it, but it is.
Be blessed
Jeff,
As for leaving something out, I found it very telling that you left out the part of Revelation saying that Mary had a crown of 12 stars on her head. Kind of hard to think of someone who is not royalty wearing a crown, n'est pas?
As for the passage in John, why is it even included in Scripture? Why were these words so important that John felt it necessary to write them down? I'll spell it out: John was telling us how to treat the mother of Christ. Christ gave His mother to "the disciple whom He loved." That's you and me Jeff. And He gave us to her. And from that time forward, we are to take her into our home, which is our heart. Mary was not just some woman who happened to bear Jesus. That shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of marriage and child bearing. (Which is the same reason that Protestants have abandoned their position on birth control.) The family is meant as a representation of God. The husband, the wife, and the children. This has been likened (albeit imperfectly) to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is a mystical unity there. The husband is the head. The wife is both the body (see Eve created from Adam) and the bride. The two become one flesh (unity), and that unity produces a single unifying entity, the child. Volumes have been written on this subject, but consider that Mary had Jesus. And Christ's Father was God/Holy Spirit. Christ is the unifying entity representing the unity between Mary and God. That is the essence of the family. Again, volumes have been written on this unity that Mary alone in all of human history experienced with the Trinity. That unity prefigures the same unity that we will all one day have with the Trinity by being united to Christ through the Church as His Bride! You begin to see just how deep this issue goes. If you would like, I can recommend some books to you that would explain all of this in detail and using Scripture.
Jeff, your interpretation of the Scripture is very narrow, unless of course it suits your beliefs otherwise. I would suggest you read Matthew. Cover to cover. Note all of the references Matthew makes to the Old Testament. Then ask yourself if, not having known anything about Christianity, you would have connected the Old Testament dots like Matthew does. If you are actually honest about it, I will guarantee you that, like me, you will find yourself scratching your head and saying "I never thought that particular Psalm had anything to do with Christ." And remember, be honest. It's for posterity's sake. (Had to slip in a Princess Bride quote somewhere!)
The point is that Scripture is not some third grade reader that you just walk through unaided. It is rich and deep. As I have stated before, even St. Peter acknowledged that Paul's writings were very difficult to understand and that the untrained would pervert them. Yet over and over again, you have made arguments to me feigning as though Scripture was something that any half-wit could understand. You are wrong, Jeff, and Scripture itself says that you are wrong. For a brilliant treatise on this issue, please go read Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine".
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
This picture is found, or most of it, back in Genesis 37. In Genesis 37 Joseph is having a dream (or vision). He dreamt of the sun (his father), the moon (his mother) and eleven stars (his brothers), the twelfth star was Joseph himself. So this great wonder that we see in verse 1 is actually the nation of Israel or the Jews as we would call them today.
So if that is already known why is this called a sign? Well the new piece is the woman, as we shall see from verse 2, the woman that was with child. To interpret this we need to go back to Genesis 3:15 to see the first mention of propagation other than under the general title of ‘multiplying’: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy see and her seed; it shall bruise they head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Essentially way back in Genesis 3:15 we see the Devil put under a time delayed sentence; one day he was going to be crushed by the Messiah.
Verse 4 then gives us a potted view of the persecutions of the Jew up to the birth of the Lord. The Devil is pictured as standing to devour the man-child and as we go through the Bible we see repeated attempts at wiping out the Jewish line. First Pharaoh in Egypt, then the attempts on David’s life, the repeated murders of Judah’s royal children, the exportation and castration of the seed under Nebuchadnezzar then attempted destruction of the Jew by Haman in Persian times and finally Herod’s attempt at killing the Lord after his birth. All of these are pictured in the Devil standing waiting to devour.
Verse 5 gives us our first definitive ‘dating’, we are told the Woman brought forth a man-child and that he was caught up into heaven. This is clearly a reference to our Lord’s incarnation and later ascension. Fitted in the narrative, as it is it really looks strange. The woman has been waiting to be delivered of the child, the Devil has been doing everything to prevent the child from coming and then as soon as He comes He goes up to heaven. This looks anti-climactic; it is not dissimilar to Daniel’s statement[1] that Messiah will be cut off.
This really is why the ‘cross’ is such a problem to the Jewish race. The Messiah was supposed to be the solution to the world’s problems; verse 5 even says that he ‘was to rule with a rod of iron’. It is by understanding these verses that we really can marvel at the privilege granted to us in the current dispensation of Grace.
Dave,
Alexus pretty much said what I was about to, only better than I could have:)
However, the woman in this picture had birth pangs. You believe that Mary did not have birth pains, or at least that is what Catholics believe. After all, God made birth painful because of the woman's sin.
If you read Joseph's dream, you will see that Rev 12 supports that the woman is Israel. From Israel came Christ. Christ was a Jew. Was Mary taken to the desert for 3 1/2 years? If you read the rest of Rev 12, you will find that the history of Israel according to the Bible is in fact represented by Israel.
Read Rev 12:16, tell me what you think:)
Be blessed
Jeff, you told me that, "prayers to Mary ask her for mercy, that she is your hope." Not True, look at the prayer to Mary every catholic knows, the "Hail Mary".
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you,
(this is not worshipping this is adressing Mary, as a matter of fact is is the way the Archangel Gabriel addressed Mary in Luke 1:28. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary, i doubt it, and since you believe we should be everything to the test of scripture and this is backed by scripture I doubt you can call this worshipping).
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
(Once again this is addressing Mary the same way she is addressed in the Bible, this time by Elizabeth in Luke 1:42. Mary herself says to call her blessed in Luke 1:48. I doubt you can call this worshipping since it is backed by scripture.)
Holy Mary, mother of God,
(Once again we are acknowleding Mary, stating who she is, obviously she is holy and in Heaven, i doubt that you would argue that, and obviously she was the mother of Jesus who is God so she would be the mother of God. Scripture teaches us it is not wrong to call someone holy, just look through Book 1 of Acts, 1 Corinthians 1:2, and Ephesians 1:1. Scripture also tell us the Mary was the mother of God, just look to Luke 1:43.)
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
(Here we ask Mary to pray for us because we are sinners, we are not asking Mary to forgive us, but we are asking her to ask God to forgive us now, and when we die so that we can get into Heaven. The question here is if praying to the dead is ok, and scripture says it is. This is clearly taught in the books of the Bible that Martin Luther removed but can also be found in James. Jesus clearly teaches us that the dead are not dead but still living in Heaven in many books in both the Protestant and Catholic bibles though, just check Matthew 22:32, and John 11:25-26.)
Now that you know exactly what Catholics say to Mary when they pray to her and what it means, along with the scriptural basis for it hopefully you can realize that Catholics are no where close to worshipping Mary, we simply admire her a great example and an extremly holy person who is in Heaven with God and the Saints. Because of her holiness her prayers obviously carry alot of weight with God and that is why we pray to Mary, so that she will pray for us and help us out, not to worship her.
check this website out, it helped me understand the "Hail Mary" alot better myself and I took alot of examples from it... http://www.newman-asu.org/lit_corner/lit_hailmary.htm
Jeff,
Again, Scripture is deep. The woman in Revelation has multiple significances, not just one. She is Mary and Israel, and also to some degree the Church itself. So the Church has always taught.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
What does the 12 jewels on the crown represent, and how does it relate to Mary?
Dave,
What do the 12 jewels on the crown represent, and how does it relate to Mary?
I located this posting while searching for an answer to my Catholic friends (I am Protestant) as to what could have been Jesus' meaning in asking the Apostle John to take care of his mother, Mary, when he was dying on the cross, unless HE truly was her ONLY child. I was taught that Mary assumed marital relations with Joseph after Jesus' birth and I did not realize how zealous some Catholics are about how the holy vessel of Mary's womb could have never carried another child! I did have a back-up story, however. I had also been taught, as a Protestant, that Joseph was much older than Mary, had probably been a widower with children when God called him to become betrothed to Mary, etc. Reading these postings has taught me a great lesson--it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things whether Mary remained a virgin all of her life or not! I will not let myself get "hung up" on this question! It does not change my beliefs in the Virgin Birth at all. There are much more important things to study and learn about where Jesus and the Bible are concerned. I will never put Mary up on the high pedestal that my Catholic friends do, but that in no way affects my relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
the question was asked regaarding who the 12 jewels are on the corwn of the woman in revelation.
Answer:
The woman in REvelation is crowned with 12 stars – representing the 12 tribes of Israel. She is crowned with 12 stars because she is
going to bear the "DAvidic King" Christ. Thus, we see the symbolism
of "crown = king and 12 stars = whom the king will be over....
She is threatened by the dragon BECAUSE of whom she will give birth
to. The serpent's allies, the "house of Herod" had set themselves
up against the reign of David's house and DAvid's successors...
Some say the woman is israel.. that is wrong ... israel represents the rest of her seed.. Israel herself is the seed cumulative, (spiritual israel as it was always) Israel doesn't give burth to herself
My daughter was searching for information on whether "Passion" had been nominated for any awards and I was reading portions of your site. I am a Christian by faith (not a Catholic,Methodist, Presbyterian,Lutheran). Insofar as Christian interpretation of the role of Mary, she is revered as chosen by God to bear his Son on earth, but not without sin or an "eternal virgin." As our Lord was God in the flesh and the only sinless "human" ever, Mary too was not without sin. Insofar as her eternal virginity, our view is based on the fact that our Mary, as a Jewish woman whom would have followed Jewish tradition (as our Lord was faithfully raised by Mary and Joseph honoring all Jewish traditions) and although was a virgin until our Lord was born, would have honored the man chosen also by God to be our Lord's earthly father, and would have been a faithful Jewish wife to him and consummated the marriage after the Lord's birth. We also translate scriptural references to Jesus's brothers (and sisters), as just that, true brothers and sisters. We also believe God would have wanted the Lord to have a "full" human life experience of all the joys and pain and would have been raised in a family. Also, the fact that Jesus did not begin his earthly ministry until he was older, indicates by a study of Jewish custom at the time, that Joseph most likely died when there were remaining minor (under 13 years old in Jewish tradition) children, and helped support them before embarking on his ministry, thus still continuing his "spotless, blameless life" by being a devoted son and brother until the call to ministry. Just thought I might explain that although Mary is very much honored by the practice of our faith, we pray to him, and only him, and not through anyone (Mary, saint or otherwise) as indicated in scripture ("No one gets to the Father except through me.")
Lindag,
Unfortunatly, Scripture doesn't support your position. Throughout Scripture the word "brother" is always used to refer to cousins, uncles, or any other male relative - this is true numerous times in the Old and New Testaments. One clear example is John 20:17-18. Jesus asks Mary Magdalene to go get his "brothers" and what does she do? She goes and gets the disciples. Also, Jesus would not have been able, legally, to give away His mother at the foot of the cross if he had any other siblings.
In addition, I recommend you study the times of Christ a little more indepth. It was considered very