Authority

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
...something that the Catholics do not want to admit.
He knew her not til...but he did know her. That is plain and simple. It means he had sexual relations with her, if has to be spelled out. Mary did not remain a virgin, not according to the Bible.
DHK

DHK,

Please refrain from statements like "Catholics just don't want to admit it." That's very childish of you. I don't hold on to this belief because I'm afraid to not to. Furthermore, try looking up the Catholic teaching on this very subject and you'll find a nice defense. The word "till," in the original language, did not mean that something HAD to happen afterwards. MANY, MANY times on this board this issue has been addressed. You chose to ignore them so that you can hold fast to your belief. Fine. But that gives you no write to say that Catholics "just don't want to" do anything. We have reasons for what we believe, regardless of what you preach about us.

 

[Carson Weber]

GraceSaves,

Scripture is emphatic regarding persons of poor (lest, bad) will. Evil engenders evil, and the vain tongue breeds contempt.

You will discover, if you have not yet, that the educated and well spoken Catholic Christian often meets his neo-Pharisaic cynic through continued discussion with those who, vainly, despise what they freely will not to love regardless of its inner truth and logic.

The attitude to employ is one of imitation of Christ. Present the faith with reason, according to Peter's admonition, and humbly identify with the LORD's Paschal Mystery.

yours in Christ the King,

Carson

[ March 23, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Deacon's Son]

Hi DHK,

You have brought up an excellent point, and one that should be addressed if we are to continue moving towards mutual understanding of our differences. Before I begin my response, I'll say once again that I am thankful for your diligent defence of and love for Scripture. What a blessing!

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with your supposition that use of the word "till" (or "until") definately proves your position on the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Greek word " heos " (translated "to", "unto", "till" or "until") is a conjuction that is used to indicate a particular period of time. It does not necessarilly imply a change in the future.

If we accept that, in Scripture, the use of the phrase "until" or "unto" always means that the event in question did change in the future, we run into some difficult propostions.

Here are some examples:

In Psalm 110, which is a Messianic psalm, God tells the Messiah to sit at his right side while he deals with his enemies: "'Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" ( Psalm 110:1 KJV ). Surely God was not implying in this verse that Jesus would no longer be seated at his right hand after his enemies had been subjugated?

In the Second Book of Samuel we read that Michal, "the daughter of Saul", "...had no child unto the day of her death." ( Chap. 6, Verse 23, KJV ). Are we to think that Michal bore children after her death?!?

I think it would be more accurate to say that Matthew, in this verse, was pointing out the fact that Jesus could not possibly have been the son of Joseph.

I'll go ahead and address one other verse sometimes raised by Protestants in refutation of Mary's perpetual virginity. It is Luke 2:7 , which reads, in part: "And she brought forth her firstborn son..." ( KJV ).

Firstborn was a technical term, not a descriptive one. It dealt with the sacrificial covenant of the Old Testament (where the firstborn animals were sacrificed) and with laws of inheritance. In this verse Luke clearly uses the term knowing that his readers would understand the underlying sacrificial, convenental and Messianic meaning of the term.

Now, I say all of this because I think that Scott brought up a good point in his response to my last post, writing "...at best, all that could be demonstrated is that Mary was possibly not the mother of the people mentioned in the text..."

Scott, I totally agree. Because neither of us was present, we rely on the testimony of witnesses, in Scripture for both of us and, for me, in Apostolic Tradition. We have simply proven that neither of our beliefs can be definitely proven or unproven by the New Testament writings alone. There is simply no definite proof either way in Scripture.

Personally, the fact that the Church (and even Protestant reformers) has always maintained that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life was powerful reason for me, when faced with the reality that Scripture is silent on the issue, to accept the teaching. For others it may be different.

As for the answer to the question: "Did Mary remain a virgin throughout her life?", we will have to agree to disagree.

God Bless.

+In Officio Agnus+,
Deacon's Son

[ March 23, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

[DHK]

Deacon,
No doubt we will have to agree to disagree. Your point concerning the conjunction "till" is well taken, as there are many that will side with you on that issue. Here are the comments of some learned scholars:

Mat 1:25 -
And knew her not (kai ouk eginwsken authn). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action. Joseph lived in continence with Mary till the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had brothers and sisters and the natural meaning is that they were younger children of Joseph and Mary and not children of Joseph by a previous marriage. So Joseph "called his name Jesus" as the angel had directed and the child was born in wedlock. Joseph showed that he was an upright man in a most difficult situation. (Robertson's Word Pictures)

Verse 25. Knew her not. The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birth of Jesus is a doctrine of the Scriptures, and very important to be believed.
But the Scriptures do not affirm that she had no children afterwards. Indeed, all the accounts in the New Testament lead us to suppose that she had. Cmt. on Mt 13:55. The language here evidently implies that she lived as the wife of Joseph after the birth of Jesus.
Her firstborn son. Her eldest son, or he that by the law had the privilege of birthright. This does not of necessity imply that she had other children; though it seems probable. It was the name given to the son which was first born, whether there were others or not. (Albert Barnes)

Mat 13:54 -
Is not this the carpenter's son? (oux outov estin o tou tektwnov uios). The well-known, the leading, or even for a time the only carpenter in Nazareth till Jesus took the place of Joseph as the carpenter. What the people of Nazareth could not comprehend was how one with the origin and environment of Jesus here in Nazareth could possess the wisdom which he appeared to have in his teaching (edidasken). That has often puzzled people how a boy whom they knew could become the man he apparently is after leaving them. They knew Joseph, Mary, the brothers (four of them named) and sisters (names not given). Jesus passed here as the son of Joseph and these were younger brothers and sisters (half brothers and sisters technically). (Robertson's Word Pictures)

The bulk of evidence in Scripture simply demonstrates that Mary did not remain a virgin after Christ was born.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

You are appealing to the authority of this writer. How does that make your case stronger than me appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

You are appealing to the authority of this writer. How does that make your case stronger than me appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church?

I am not appealing to his authority. My authority is the Word of God. I am offering the insight of a very learned person who has studied this more than me or you.

 

[Pauline]

A big problem in this discussion is the fact that the Protestantism does't have doctrines which support one another and hold together in one body of truth to the extent that Catholicism does. And that is not meant as a put down but rather as a fact.

You simply don't see the necessity of what we Christians believe about Mary having to do with what we believe about the two natures of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it seems inconceivable to you to have to believe in Mary being immaculately conceived, in her remaining ever virgin, and in her bodily assumption. All of these doctrines, to Catholics, teach something about Jesus Christ. And to deny those doctrines about Mary would deny essential truths about Jesus.

To a Catholic, your view is simplistic and fragmented because our dogmas hold together in one package or body of Truth given to the Church by God Himself.

You can have beliefs and practices that you don't have as deep a theological reason for holding to as Catholics do. For example, many on this board agree that women should not be priests or pastors. For most of the Protestants who so believe, it is probably because of Paul's one statement about women not teaching and maybe one or two other short statements in Scripture. But would you carry that out to a deep theological teaching? When I was a Protestant, we certainly didn't.

But the Catholic Church knows that for women to be made priests would be a heretical teaching against the very nature of the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Pauline

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
I am not appealing to his authority. My authority is the Word of God. I am offering the insight of a very learned person who has studied this more than me or you.

I see, and probably more than the Catholic Church, over its 2000 years, correct? Yes, you were appealing to his authority.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I am not appealing to his authority. My authority is the Word of God. I am offering the insight of a very learned person who has studied this more than me or you.

I see, and probably more than the Catholic Church, over its 2000 years, correct? Yes, you were appealing to his authority.</font>[/QUOTE]Grace,
Wake up and smell the Scriptures. Go through this and other threads and see how many times Catholics have referenced Protestants and Baptists to other websites, quoted from church fathers, quoted from other apologists such as Scott Hahn, etc. You quote from a Tradition, which in fallible--the church. Yet you treat it as infallible. When you quote from the Church fathers or from the Pope, you quote as if you are quoting with the authority of the Word of God. I do not. Albert Barnes, for example, is one of the men I referred to you. He was a Presbyterian. I do not agree with everything he says. I do not agree with all of his theology, especially when it comes to eschatology, and ecclesiology. But all in all, he is a very good commentator, and has very good insight into the Word of God. He is not my authority. He is a source of reference. There is a big difference.
DHK

 

[Pauline]

DHK,
For claiming to hold to the Scriptures, you are ignoring Scriptural evidence to support the fact that Mary did not have other children.

Much of that evidence has been posted above, showing that those called brethren of Jesus had a different mother. And that the word brother(s) was used for many other relationships that did not include blood relationship at all. For example, when Jesus sent Mary, Jn 20,17, to His brethren -- He meant the disciples. Or do you think that Scripture here is teaching that all the disciples were blood brothers to Jesus and natural sons of Mary?

Pauline

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
Grace,
Wake up and smell the Scriptures. Go through this and other threads and see how many times Catholics have referenced Protestants and Baptists to other websites, quoted from church fathers, quoted from other apologists such as Scott Hahn, etc.

Yes, and almost every time we are criticized for it, because if we aren't quoting directly from Scripture, you don't want to hear it. How, then, do you get to use your quotes which carry the same weight?

Originally posted by DHK:
You quote from a Tradition, which in fallible--the church. Yet you treat it as infallible.

That's because I believe that Sacred Tradition is infallible, because it is the Word of God. You've yet to prove otherwise.

Originally posted by DHK:
When you quote from the Church fathers or from the Pope, you quote as if you are quoting with the authority of the Word of God.

I do not quote the Church Fathers as infallible. I quote them as a reference that Catholic beliefs were not "invented" merely a few hundred years ago, but were around during the time following Christ's disciples.

Originally posted by DHK:
I do not.

Obviously.

Originally posted by DHK:
Albert Barnes, for example, is one of the men I referred to you. He was a Presbyterian. I do not agree with everything he says. I do not agree with all of his theology, especially when it comes to eschatology, and ecclesiology. But all in all, he is a very good commentator, and has very good insight into the Word of God.

And yet he's fallible, so you can't use him as an example that provides an absolute truth. Furtheremore, if you go back and read his commentary, he never says Mary had more children, he just uses terms such as "probable." So, when you go and say this:

"The bulk of evidence in Scripture simply demonstrates that Mary did not remain a virgin after Christ was born."

You are merely appealing to a fallible authority, one who did not even state this to be a definite matter. The Bible clearly doesn't speak either way, and both sides have preposed valid arguements. Therefore, the "bulk of evidence" doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by DHK:
He is not my authority. He is a source of reference. There is a big difference.
DHK

You used his words to prove your point, a point which is not evident in Scripture. Deacon's Son and others have presented a wealth of evidence on the word "till," on who the brothers of Christ were really the sons of, and many other examples.

You used these scholars as an excuse to push a belief that is not explicitly evident in Scripture. This is no different than Catholics putting trust in the Magesterium.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Pauline:
DHK,
For claiming to hold to the Scriptures, you are ignoring Scriptural evidence to support the fact that Mary did not have other children.
Much of that evidence has been posted above, showing that those called brethren of Jesus had a different mother. And that the word brother(s) was used for many other relationships that did not include blood relationship at all. For example, when Jesus sent Mary, Jn 20,17, to His brethren -- He meant the disciples. Or do you think that Scripture here is teaching that all the disciples were blood brothers to Jesus and natural sons of Mary?
Pauline

I am not the one ignoring Scriptural evidence here. Let's look at this passage once again.

Mat.13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
---Now let us apply proper principles of hermeneutics to ascertain what is meant by these two verses:

1. Take the literal meaning unless the context dictates otherwise.
Consider the phrases being used:
"carpenter's son"
"mother" called Mary
"brethren" James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
"His sisters"
"this man"

Are they all literal? Of course they are. They speak of family relationships, the specific family of Jesus Christ. To take one word out of those two verses ("brethren") and give it an alternative meaning, is to do injustice to the literal context of the passage. Take the passage literally unless context dictates otherwise. There is no reason to believe that the word "brethren" should have any other meaning then the real brothers of Christ, born of Mary, after Christ was born. If you redefine "brethren," what is to stop you from redefining, "man," "carpenter's son," "mother?"

2. What is the historical and cultural setting of the passage?
Is there anything in the history or the culture of that time that would warrant a change in the literal meaning of those words? And the answer comes back again, no. The cultural setting was speaking of a carpenter's son. Jesus had grown up under Joseph's guidance learning the trade of a carpenter. How could this simple carpenter do all these wonderful miracles. Here was his immediate family standing about him, which everyone knew. He was simply the son of a carpenter, and had this great power. Who was he really? The cultural setting gives credence to the view that these ones (brethren and sisters) were indeed his own, born of Mary, after Christ's own birth.

3. The grammatical principle.
Study the grammar. What is in the grammar of the passage to change the meaning? The grammar is straightforward and simple. There is nothing complicated here. These were simple questions that were being asked. They are all interrogatives. Their answer lies in the next two verses:

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
---They were offended because of their unbelief. Though his family was there, though they had known him, though they had seen his mighty works, they would not believe. It is inverse 54 that we find how they witnessed his mighty works that testified about him. But they rejected Him.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

And yet every reference you make to immediate family is your own. The verse says nothing about immediate family.

Furthermore, why did it name his brothers, and not his sisters?

Furthrmore, who is to say that his cousins were not integrally close to his immediate family of mother and father?

You are reading in a lot to make it ABSOLUTELY true that his "brethern" were his blood brothers.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
And yet every reference you make to immediate family is your own. The verse says nothing about immediate family.
Furthermore, why did it name his brothers, and not his sisters?
Furthrmore, who is to say that his cousins were not integrally close to his immediate family of mother and father?
You are reading in a lot to make it ABSOLUTELY true that his "brethern" were his blood brothers.

I have well-explained the passage to you Grace. I have not read into the passage anything that is not already there. I have taken and believed God's Word exactly as it is written. What you want to do is to take a Catholic doctrine, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, and somehow push that pre-conceived notion into those verses. It doesn't work. Nobody reading that passage for the first time would ever get that idea.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

What do you believe the age span is between Jesus and his immediate blood brothers? 3 years? 6 years? 10 years?

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

DHK,

You wrote, "What you want to do is to take a Catholic doctrine, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, and somehow push that pre-conceived notion into those verses."

And perhaps you're taking your pre-conceived notion of Mary's lack of virginity and somehow pushing that pre-conceived notion onto those verses.

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

God bless,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Carson,
I don't know the age difference between Jesus and his brothers. The Scriptures do not tell us. Authoritatively we do not know. There may be some outside source that may have some information such as Josephus but I do not know. Christ was the firstborn. Mary was a virging when Christ was born. His brothers were all older, and that is what is important.

"And perhaps you're taking your pre-conceived notion of Mary's lack of virginity and somehow pushing that pre-conceived notion onto those verses."

Not at all. I am not the one changing the meaning of words that have so obvious a meaning. When I refer to my brother, people do not expect me to be referring to a cousin. That is just a ridiculous assumption to make. It is reading into the Scripture something that isn't there. As to the Scriptures being in Aramaic, Aramaic may have spoken by some, but Greek was the lingua franca of the world. It was universally known. Jesus spoke so all could understand him. The New Testament was written in Greek, and inspired or inscripturated in Greek. The language of Aramaic is entirely out of this discussion. We are dealing with the Greek New Testament Scriptures. "Adelphos" means "brother."
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

In the Old Testament, the first child was named the "firstborn" regardless of subsequent children.

For Jews, "firstborn" meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

You wrote, "When I refer to my brother, people do not expect me to be referring to a cousin."

And, as I've shown you, there is a difference in culture/language between you, a 21st c. American speaking a particular dialect of English versus wide semantic range of meaning in the Biblical text. So, your argument is void, and it doesn't carry any weight in dialogue with me.

You wrote, "Aramaic may have spoken by some, but Greek was the lingua franca of the world. It was universally known. Jesus spoke so all could understand him. The New Testament was written in Greek, and inspired or inscripturated in Greek. The language of Aramaic is entirely out of this discussion. We are dealing with the Greek New Testament Scriptures. "Adelphos" means "brother.""

Actually, brother, (pun intended

), Mark, who was writing to a predominantly Roman audience (as was proper of him, as the companion of Paul, who travelled to, preached in, and was beheaded within the vicinity of Rome) translated the Aramaic sayings of Jesus in his Gospels for the Gk speaking populace there, including the original Aramaic words in his writing.

Mark 5:41 - "Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Tal'itha cu'mi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

Mark 15:34 - "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?""

John does this too, when he retains the Aramaic name for "rock" when he recounts Jesus' renaming of Simon in Jn 1:42: "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)."

Sometimes I wonder how Biblically literate you Bible-only Christians really are..

God bless,

Carson

[ March 23, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

The reason I asked you for the age difference b/t Jesus and his brothers is because of the lack of mention of other siblings as Luke recalls the 5th joyful mystery: The Finding in the Temple.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

God bless,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

The reason that Jesus was referred to as "the son of Mary," is that the general populace knew that he was virgin born. He was born of Mary, not of Joseph. He was the son of Mary. Look at the disdain that the Pharisees had concerning His birht:
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
---They attributed his virgin birth to one born out of wedlock, even as they attributed his miracles to the work of Satan, and eventually crucified Him.
DHK