Mary Def. Had Other Children...

[Guest Gruvx]

Where is the basis that Mary was a Virgin till death? And that Christ did not have siblings?

Luke2:7 uses [b]firstborn[/b] and in Greek that is prototokos [the first of many others] had Mary not had any other children, the Greek word, monogenes [only son/daughter/child] would have been used. like in Luke 7:12 and in Luke 8:42 where is specifically states only son or daughter. also "The ONLY begotten son of the Father" keyword again only.

no where does it mention that Christ was her only son or child, but it does mention his brothers and his sisters.

Galations 1:19 gives his brother james
I Cor. 9:5 mentions his brothers, whom did not believe in him at first

Matthew 13:55-56

this passage is literal...how can brothers mean cousins in this text [as some claim] when it clearly is speaking of Mother [mary] and father [jospeh]. that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. .

Matthew 12:46-50

Matthew 1:25 [And knew her not [b]till[/b] she had brought forth her [b]firstborn [/b]son...]

why would it mention firstborn if she had no other children...parents with only one child, do not say this is my FIRSTborn, because it is eviden they dont' have anymore, but the Bible specifically states firstborn to show Mary had others.

Thanks!

[Aloysius]

sorry the scholars are soooo slooooowwww... but i can answer your question!
[quote]Luke2:7 uses firstborn and in Greek that is prototokos [the first of many others] had Mary not had any other children, the Greek word, monogenes [only son/daughter/child] would have been used. like in Luke 7:12 and in Luke 8:42 where is specifically states only son or daughter. also "The ONLY begotten son of the Father" keyword again only.[/quote]

ACTUALLY, it was customary to call the person who first came out of a woman's womb the "firstborn" regardless of whether or not there would be others. menogenes wouldn't have been used there because according to Jewish Law Jesus was the firstborn of Mary and would fit into those rules in the Law that talk of a firstborn. Jesus was Mary's firstborn, there were no others born after Him, but He opened the womb and is thus called "firstborn" according to Jewish thought.

[quote]no where does it mention that Christ was her only son or child, but it does mention his brothers and his sisters.

Galations 1:19 gives his brother james
I Cor. 9:5 mentions his brothers, whom did not believe in him at first
[/quote]
his brethren, see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).[/quote]
[quote]
Matthew 13:55-56

this passage is literal...how can brothers mean cousins in this text [as some claim] when it clearly is speaking of Mother [mary] and father [jospeh]. that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. .
[/quote]

it is speaking of his family. They know His mother, His father, His cousins.
Matthew 12:46-50

[quote]
Matthew 1:25 [And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son...]
[/quote]

simple, "until" or heos in greek, does not mean that he knew her after. in english, that's the connotation the word "until" has, but not in greek.

[quote]
why would it mention firstborn if she had no other children...parents with only one child, do not say this is my FIRSTborn, because it is eviden they dont' have anymore, but the Bible specifically states firstborn to show Mary had others.

Thanks!

[/quote]
your welcome. i'm sure the Church Scholars will get to it eventually.

pAx

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

If brother must absolutely mean brother, then you must admit that any and all of the brothers Jesus had were also conceived by the Holy Spirit, right? Since at most Jesus could have had half-brothers, the term brothers must mean something other than brother. It may still refer to step-brothers. Joseph may have been widowes and had sons with this first wife. When he married Mary, these children would have become Jesus's step-brothers. I guess my point is that brother not only cannot, but must not mean real full-blooded brother!

[dUSt]

Moving this to the Debate Table.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Gruvx' date='Jun 23 2004, 12:56 AM'] that would be changing context in the middle of a sentence. . [/quote]
You are rock, and on this rock I build my church. Gee let me think...

Dude, that happens a lot

Edited June 23, 2004 by RandomProddy

[crusader1234]

I think that your comments about 1:25 are interesting and would like to hear how people refute this as I don't know how.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14388"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14388[/url]

[p0lar_bear]

I'm too lazy right now to write this out myself, but read this

[url="http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/brotsist.pdf"]http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/brotsist.pdf[/url]

From that article:

On the word "till":

In the Bible’s languages, as in the English language prior to modern times, clauses which begin with “before” or “until” (“till”) do not necessarily imply that after the completion of an action there followed a reversal of the situation described. In other words, to say “x did not happen until y” only meant that “x” did not happen up to a certain point in time (i.e., “y”); it did not necessarily mean that “x” did happen after “y.” A clear example can be found in Paul’s words to Timothy, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching...” (1 Tim. 4:13). Obviously, Paul did not mean to suggest that Timothy should give up these activities after his arrival. Another such use of the “until” clause is found in Psalm 123:2, which reads, “Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he have mercy upon us.” Obviously, the psalmist does not mean that we should take our eyes off the Lord after He has mercy on us!

On the word "firstborn":

For the Jews of Jesus’ time and their neighbors, “first-born” was always used to refer to the first male child of a marriage, regardless of whether other children were subsequently born to the couple. It was an important legal and religious term meaning that there were no prior male children.

To understand this better, look at Exodus 13. The Lord said to Moses that Israel should “set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb” (Ex. 13:12). This included “first-born” male humans: “Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem” (Ex. 13:13b; cf. Num. 3:12; Lk. 2:22-23). Further evidence is found in Exodus 12, when the first-born of Egypt die. Verse 12:30 says, “There was not [an Egyptian] house where one was not dead.” This would include the houses of young couples who only had one son. That Jesus was Mary and Joseph’s “first-born” cannot refute Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Edited June 23, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[Aloysius]

actually, read this! [url="http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html"]http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html[/url]

like i mentioned in the other thread, for Matthew 1:25, "heos" in greek does not connotate that after Joseph knew Mary.

The coolest one I can think of to refute the idea that scripture means that is that you'd havta use the same logic when Jesus says "I will be with you until the end of the world" He's still gonna be with us after the end of the world too.

[dUSt]

Merged.

[Quietfire]

Also please keep in mind. One must study scripture in the context of the first Christian mind. Cousins were 'brothers' in the sense of family to first century Christians. Do some studying (outside of the Bible) and you will understand.

Do you really think it was foremost in the mind of the apostles and disciples that some thousands of years later this would be an issue? No. This is how they were. This is how we are. You cannot take what you are today and apply it in the same sense as them. You must look at it from their perspective, not yours.

Same as hundreds of years ago it was customary to marry 'within' the family to continue the blood line. Yeah, we go yuck! But things [b]were[/b] different then, and that is how you must understand to see the subletities.

Also, if you understand that there is a 'hidden' meaning in the word 'brother' and 'sister'. I am not an expert, but I have noticed more and more in my studies that Jesus was making a point that the whole human race is connected. We are all responsible for the ultimate salvation of our race, as well as our own personal salvation. So each of us is important. In that sense, we are all brothers and sisters.

Every unbeliever, as well as every Catholic is, a being with an immortal spirit, made in the image of God, for whom Christ died. That being said, we are all related. Not because God happened to make us all in his image, but because precisely God did make us in his image.
God is,(to all of us), our Father.
Mary is our Mother, precisely because she gave birth to God in the Flesh.
Jesus is God, concieved of the Holy Spirit, borne of the Virgin Mary. Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity.

The Bible records no other immediate 'family' in Jesus' line. He is the first, He is the last. The Alpha and Omega. His cousins were his brothers and sisters.


Peace :peace:

Edited June 23, 2004 by Quietfire

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The charge that Mary had other children was considered ridiculous until the time of the Reformers. The only major contest to Mary's perpetual virginity until that time came from Helvidius (circa 380 A.D.). St. Jerome was eventually persuaded to write a reply that was so convincing, Helvidius never responded. Jerome's work, entitled [i]The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary[/i], can be viewed online here:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm[/url]

The great thinkier, St. Thomas Aquinas also used his logic to refute arguements against Mary's perpetual virginity in his [u]Summa Theologica[/u]:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402803.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402803.htm[/url]

The Fathers of the early Church also agreed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life:
[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm[/url]

There are also many Biblical tracts online to meet these claims:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM[/url]

Edited June 23, 2004 by thedude

[Quietfire]

[quote]The charge that Mary had other children was considered ridiculous until the time of the Reformers.[/quote]

And here is the interesting thing that many protestants have not thought of, but what got me into Catholicism in the first place.

Before the Reformation everybody was Catholic. (you all know what I mean) We were all taught by the Church, our knowledge came from the Church. Ask a question, and the Church had the answer.

But NOW, since the Reformation, those who left the Church. (the Protestants) had to teach their children and any persons they converted with their own wisdom and understanding. They no longer had 1500 years of research and information at their immediate disposal. They had to prove their point on their own retained wisdom. As time passed and more information was put into print, more information was available from the Church to show time and time again that Luther and Calvin (to name a few) were incorrect. Unfortunately, being conditioned to think a particular way made it seem as though the Church was 'introducing something new', when it was there all along. And like the proverbial game of "telephone line", so to speak, as some questioned the authority of theie own Protestant churches, they would end up leaving [b]that[/b] Protestant church and start their own 'new and correct' church. As a result we now have more Protestant denomination than we can shake a stick at.
Now we have churches that deny the divinity of Christ altogether.

No one ever questioned this issue (Jesus the only son of Mary)before the Reformation.(minus the exception stated in the other post above) This is something the Church has always known and taught. Not because it was some big conspiracy, but because it is, and always shall be, the truth. What would the Church gain by lying? And consequencially (sp), had the Church started lying about Scripture, hiding things and omitting things as some accuse, she would not have lasted 2000 years.(and still going)
Think about it. The gates of Hell shall not (as in...never has, never will) prevail against her. Oh, she may be tested, may go through trials and tribulations, but those who are faithful and trust in God, will not jump ship; cause the ship wont sink. Jesus gave his word, " I shall be with you always, even unto the end of the world".

Thats good enough for me.
Amen.


Peace. :peace:

Edited June 23, 2004 by Quietfire

[Lil Red]

Get the book, Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn. it's dope

[P3chrmd]

Mary = Spouse of the Holy Spirit!


are you calling Gods Mother an adulterous!?!



Whenever I get angry with people who bring this subject up...and I don't feel like throwing bible verses their way, I just state the above fact!

Jesus et Maria, Amos Vos, Salvate Animas
Brandon V.

[StColette]

Okay I'm a little late to the topic but I've dealt and explored this topic quite a bit for the past couple of years.

If you look at the Scripture passages carefully that refer to the brothers of Jesus they at no time refer to them as the children of Mary, the Blessed Virgin. The only person that is ever indicated as the child of Mary is Jesus Christ.

Example of the Scriptural passages

Mk:6:3:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. (DRV)

see no where does it indicate that James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon are the children of Mary.

The Blessed Virgin, is always referred to as the mother of Jesus or the mother of the saviour. Another thing that must be watched carefully is to not confuse the Marys in the Bible.

For example,

Mt:27:56:
56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (DRV)
Mk:15:40:
40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome, (DRV)
Mk:15:47:
47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid. (DRV)

Mt:1:18:
18 ¶ Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. (DRV)
Jn:2:3:
3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. (DRV)
Jn:19:25:
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. (DRV)

After reading those verses its easy to see that Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is always announced with reference toward her son, Jesus.

Maybe this will help

[P3chrmd]

The traditional belief of all the Ancient churches is that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin all her life.

"For neither did Mary, who is to be honoured and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever and immaculate virgin." (Didimus the Blind, The Trinity. 381 AD)

Many Protestants choose to argue with this, quoting the following text:

Matt 1.24-25: And being aroused from sleep, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife, and did not know her until she bore her son, the Firstborn. And he called his name Jesus.

There are two points here. 1. The word "until", sometimes taken to imply that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus; and 2. "Firstborn", sometimes taken to imply other children.

With regard to the word "until", let's look at the following verses:

Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age."

John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day."

In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned primarily to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after.

For the rest, let us allow a very unexpected defender of Marian doctrine to answer the points:

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562

BUT WHAT ABOUT JESUS' BROTHERS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE?

There are several gospel references to Jesus having "brothers and sisters". This is the most specific:

Matthew 13:55. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us?"

One traditional response is that these may have been children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Joseph is traditionally held to be much older than Mary.

Another important factor here is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents.

WHAT PROOF IS THERE OF THIS?

Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother".

BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK, WHICH DOES HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN.

This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above.

SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?"

A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses.

B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus.

C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly as servant of Jesus. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but he doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated.

D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.

A few more points:


In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary"
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

[i]THANKS TO WWW.OURLADYWEB.COM[/i]

[Cure of Ars]

Another argument is in Luke 1:34. Mary when the angel Gabriel said that she was about to have a son she said, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. This is a weird statement. I was married four years ago and have two children. If an angel told me that I was going to have a son right before I got married it would not be a big shock. Babies usually come after you get married. But Mary said, “How can this be”. The only way to make sense of this is if Mary had a vow of virginity. Which Catholic Tradition attests to. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was more than an engagement. Joseph even was going to get a divorce from Mary when he found that she was with child.


Also in Jn 19:26 when Jesus was on the cross he did not give his mother over to his younger brothers. Instead he entrusted Mary to John and John to Mary. In the Jewish culture the responsibility to take care of parents went to the oldest living and able son. This shows that Mary did not have any other children.

Edited June 24, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

But you don't have to take our word for it. Here is what the protestant reformers had to say;

[color=red]Martin Luther[/color]

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 319

"......knew that she was to become the Mother of the Son of God, she did not wish to become the mother of the son of man, but remained in that gift."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

"Undoubtedly, there is no one so powerful that, depending on his own intelligence, without Scripture, he would maintain that she did not remain a virgin."
Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320

[color=red]Calvin[/color]

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}


Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }


[color=red]Huldreich Zwingli[/color]

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 . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

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.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

[color=red]John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)[/color]

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

[color=red]Heinrich Bullinger[/color]

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.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

[phatcatholic]

i have two more arguments to add to what has already been said. these basically come from what quietfire was saying about understanding the thought and the tradition of the day to interpret scripture.

[b]point #1: [/b]in the verses where we see Jesus' "brothers" we often have these "brothers" trying to tell Jesus what to do, to quit saying what he's saying or to leave town. if these "brothers" were really Jesus' blood brothers then they would have to be younger then him--since Jesus is the firstborn. but then--and here's the important part--we would have younger brothers telling the oldest brother what to do.

--this was simply NOT DONE in jewish society. the eldest of the brothers held an esteem which did not allow the younger brothers to be so bold.

so, these "brothers" are either half-brothers (Jesus' brothers from Joseph's other marriage--which is possible since early documents testify that Joseph was a widow) or they are counsins, other family, friends, or individuals related to Jesus in some other regard. this is really the only way those instances fit into Jewish custom


[b]point #2:[/b] it was also Jewish custom for the eldest son, when he died, to place the care of his mother to his next oldest brother. we know from the bible that Jesus was aware of jewish custom and was faithful to them--when they were in accordance w/ God's true intentions (celebrating the passover, being baptized, etc.). but, he gave care of his mother to the apostle John. therefore, these "brothers" were not his actual brothers or Jesus would have undoubtedly given care of his mother to them, instead of John.


these are just two points which stress the important of the context of scripture w/in the time and culture it was written. added to the other arguments that have been made in this thread, a strong case is made for mary's perpetual virginity.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 24, 2004 by phatcatholic