Tags
Truly there are no new errors under the sun. There are, however, repetitions of errors by those unversed in history.
In the fourth century a man called Heldvius wrote a book arguing that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that the brothers and sisters of Jesus recorded in the Gospels were uterine siblings. This ran counter to what Christians had always believed, and St Jerome responded with a book called The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary in which he suggested that they were either cousins on Mary’s side, or children of a previous marriage of St Joseph.
The word used by the Evangelist is adelfos/adelphos. For monoglots who insist that the word brother must mean uterine brother, here is Strong’s defintion:
| Definition | |
|
To state on the basis of no more than one’s own opinion that it has to be uterine brother defies both the dictionary and most of Christian tradition. It also runs counter to usage elsewhere in the Bible and is, were another one needed, an example of the tendency of modern Protestant sects to make it up as they go along (you won’t find Anglicans or Lutherans indulging in this).
For example, in Genesis 13:8 and 14:16, the word adelphos was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22). So, if we are going to insist on a single meaning for ‘adelfos’ then we are going to find ourselves with a pile of egg on our face.
The excellent Lonely Pilgrim has an excellent post on this and links to his other splendid explorations of the problem. You will note that like all true apologists, he deals with care and in detail with the evidence; not once does he state that it must be as he says because the word in English is ‘brothers’ – as though it has only one meaning in English. When I refer to fellow Christians as brothers in Christ, I am not implying that my late father and mother had lots more children. When my Trades Union colleague refers to his ‘brothers’ in the Union, he is not implying that he is related to them by birth.
When the Holy Family go into exile in Egypt, there are three of them; when they go to present the child in the Temple, there are three of them; when they go to take the young Jesus to the Temple when he is 12, there are three of them. At the crucifixion Jesus does not commend His mother to Her other sons, he commends her to St John, His cousin. Of course, it could be that all those sons were hiding, or that they just happened to have the same names as the sons of Mary and Clopas. Of course, it could also be that the Church and most Christiasn for most of history have it right. The Lutherans are wrong, the Catholics and the Orthodox are wrong, the Anglicans are wrong, but a few monoglot Englishmen with access to a dictionary know better than the people who spoke kione Greek. Or perhaps a humility check is in order for some people?
All Along the Watchtower 
Chalcedon – ummm ….. I still go for the ‘brother’ (as in ‘brother’ as in the English meaning) interpretation. John 7v3 ‘Jesus brothers said to him, ”You ought to leave here and go to Judea …..” FOR EVEN HIS OWN BROTHERS DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIM.’
I’m prepared to accept the word ‘brother’ having a wider meaning, but that would usually imply some sort of brotherly affection, which wasn’t present here. His brothers took the view that he was a Prize Charlie – which is less remarkable if it comes from a cousin.
I always took the John 19 reference to mean that Jesus brothers *still* did not believe, Mary had taken the dangerous line by expressing solidarity with Jesus at the foot of the cross and since the brothers did not want to associate with this solidarity, the beloved disciple John was the best option.
The way you take it is certainly a valid understanding of the language – it just seems to me that the closer you place the brothers to Christ, the more remarkable their unbelief – and this makes their conversion at some later stage more interesting.
LikeLike
That is, I think, Jock, the point. Unless we posit that Jesus had a set of brothers with precisely the same names as his cousins by his aunt, Mary of Clopas (which would be bit confusing) we have a simple enough situation in all probability.
Joseph dies at some point before Jesus begins his mission. He and Mary live with her sister in law and their children who are treated to all intents and purposes as his brothers It would be natural for those who had known them all to refer to them as such. Indeed, if we believe Jude, he refers to himself as such.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – this makes sense and removes most (but not all) of my objections. Following John 7, it won’t do to consider ‘brother’ here as expressing some sort of Spiritual affinity (it’s clearly not used in the same way as ‘brother Bosco’ to describe a fellow believer, for example, because at that stage they weren’t believers) and the John 7 use of ‘brother’ would look a bit strained for a normal cousin.
If they had been living together in the way suggested by you, then this would give the sort of relation which justified the use of the word ‘brother’ found in John 7.
The objection it doesn’t fully remove – and I accept that this objection is ‘extra-Scriptural’ – I had this idea of Mary, evangelising her own family of unbelievers in the teeth of opposition from her own family, through her witness and obedience to Christ (at the foot of the cross). The family came to faith and played a key role in the foundational ministry.
It’s more powerful if they were her own children.
LikeLike
Not if it was, as we believe, written by St John who was himself part of the extended family.
LikeLike
OK, then I think I go back to my original supposition – in John 7, Jesus brothers really were his brothers.
The beginning of John’s gospel, the gathering of the disciples makes less sense to me if James bar Zebedee and John bar Zebedee had been living in the same household as Jesus. Furthermore, it seems to me that John 7 loses some of its impact if it changes to ‘most of his brothers’ or ‘some of his brothers’. The idea that the whole family was against Jesus and his mother is quite striking.
James, the author of the epistle, is a different James from James the brother of the beloved disciple. They didn’t seem to have a wide variety of names – they did seem to lack creativity when it came to naming their offspring.
LikeLike
Certainly true, but of course, John may well have been very content to show that the children of Mary of Clopas, those closest to the Lord, also did not understand him. There is no requirement in any of this to overturn what most people have believed for most of Christian history. We moderns are not the repository of all wisdom.
LikeLike
chalcedon – i am shooting of the top of head, but some call james the brother of the lord, but this same mother of james, somehow is the mother not called the mother of jesus too, but of james, so the mothers are not the same and the term brothers as james the brother of the lord is not the same as blood brothers.
I do not believe that Jesus have brothers as we understand it and the acts does not talk about about blood kin. This is a society based on tribe, kin and blood, and christ’s kin would have given honor and place.
But I am a Catholic and what do I know, I don’t believe that the showing of hands, overrules the apostles, the holy spirit, the church fathers and the deposit of faith. silly me.
LikeLike
Good points Tom, and I agree.
LikeLike
Jessica,
I think you have missed the essential point, the word Adelphos does not allow us to be absolutely certain as to the relationship implied. Careful writers though they were, the evangelists did not see any need to define the relationship signified beyond all doubt. Because, of course, the notion of perpetual virginity was still several decades in the future.
LikeLike
True. However, unless one supposes there are two familes with children with precisely the same names (which would have been a trfile confusing) it seems clearl enough that tradition and Scripture work together here.
LikeLike
If I may expand just a little on my point: when Luke and Matthew want to specify that Mary conceived without sleeping with a man, they do so emphatically and without ambiguity. Matthew in particular makes a point of noting that Joseph did not lie with Mary until (at least) after the birth of her son.
Even a sceptic must accept that the notion of the virgin birth is part of the tradition known to the gospel writers. — And the evangelists were capable of forestalling misunderstandings, (e.g., ‘not the Judas who would betray him’ in Jn).
Given all this, is it not remarkable that if the striking fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary was known to the evangelists they felt no need whatsoever to affirm it, and used terms that allowed for such ambiguity?
LikeLike
Not at all. A fact known to all is the last thing anyone thinks to emphasise. There is no need to read the Evangelists as saying that Mary later had sexual relations with that man. Indeed, think for a moment. You know that your wife is with child by the Holy Ghost. You are a righteous man, that is one learned in the Torah and pious, and you later have sex with her? Really? What is the warrant for believing that a pious Jew would have behaved in such a manner?
LikeLike
Chalcedon – but if we accept your hypothesis, then there were at least two different James in the same household – James bar Zebedee who was killed by Herod in the earlier part of Acts and James the brother of our Lord who wrote the epistle. Or do you think that James bar Zebedee wrote the epistle?
They could have been a bit more creative with names – Dougal and Dylan for example, and instead of several Maries they could have tried Florence and Ermintrude, but they didn’t – they seemed to be stuck for names – and your solution has two distinct James in the same household (unless you think that James bar Zebedee wrote the epistle).
LikeLike
We know there was a limited stock of names, of which Jacob (James) was one. But to think that there would not only be two James, but two Simons and two Joses as well – seems a little far-fetched to think they’d all names all their sons the same.
LikeLike
If the views of Heldvius are true(I think they are but that is not my point here) it does not detract from the majesty and wonder and divinity of Jesus not one bit in my minds. No contemporaries of Mary and Jesus in their village thought of the birth this way. The early church felt adding mythology to the faith would draw pagan membership. If Jesus arrived in a space ship from some galaxy my faith and commitment to Christian living would be no less sincere.
LikeLike
I agree, but since these traditions go back as far as the NT itself, I see no reason to doubt them.
LikeLike
I do – it seems to me that cults of virginity (for example the vestal virgins) were quite prominent in the Greek / Roman world (I confess complete ignorance, though). This played no part in the Jewish tradition. I wonder if ideas of ‘perpetual virginity’ might have been introduced by Gentile believers, bringing some of their old baggage.
As far as Joseph, a righteous man, having normal marital relations with his wife goes – again there is absolutely no information. Who knows? Perhaps God indicated to Joseph that he wanted his only begotten son to have a normal family life with brothers and sisters.
LikeLike
We can only go on what is in Scripture here Jock. We are told Mary was a Virgin. We are told she was with child by the Holy Ghost. We are told Joseph was a righteous man, which in Jewish tradition meant a man learned in the Torah and most pious. The notion that such a man, having been told his wife was with child by God would later have chosen to defile that sacred space is one beyond believing.
Mark is Peter’s interpreter, Matthew another Jew. You are right, there was nothing in Jewish tradition about virgin births, yet these Jews record it in their writings. Why? For no other reason than that it was true.
LikeLike
Chalcedon ….. so I think we’ve defined the point of disagreement. It never occurred to me to consider that there was anything wrong with a married man and woman (married to each other) engaging in activities with a view to developing a family. Is the word ‘defile’ appropriate in this context?
LikeLike
Entirely. Mary had been visited by the Holy Spirit and in her womb had lain the Saviour of the World. A man given the name righteous would have had a hight sense of the Holy, and the notion of intruding where the Spirit of God alone had been would have been akin to blasphemy.
This was no ordinary conception and no ordinary family.
LikeLike
You know that your wife is with child by the Holy Ghost. You are a righteous man, that is one learned in the Torah and pious, and you later have sex with her? Really? What is the warrant for believing that a pious Jew would have behaved in such a manner?
Chalcedon, although I don’t feel entirely convinced by your conclusion, that is a very interesting point, I do see what you mean.
LikeLike
Thank you Jerry. I do think when you think of it that way it really does make sense of the tradition we have inherited. Thank you both for your interest and your comments.
LikeLike
As St. Ambrose stated: “Mary is the Temple of God, not the God of the Temple.” I think that sanctity of a living Temple of God is good way to think of Mary. Who would dare defile that living Temple?
LikeLike
Exactly. Certainly not a man called ‘righteous’.
LikeLike
Of course, then there is the problem that Christ is fathered by the Holy Spirit – that which is restricted to those who are betrothed. Does that make both Mary and Joseph adulterers? Not sure about Levitical law but it seems to me a possibility.
LikeLike
Indeed. As a righteous man, Joseph coud have enforced the full letter of the Law against what he assumed to be his erring betrothed. She could have been stoned to death. His position as a righteous man prevented him from adopting the role of father to a child he knew was not his. But being merciful, he was prepared to set her aside. He didn’t because of what the Angel told him.
The notion that after all of this he would go and have normal marital relations with her smacks of a culture which fails to understand the sacred and the hold it has on people.
LikeLike
Indeed C.
It’s hard to grasp that anyone would once again live a worldly life after experiencing God’s sublime mysteries.
LikeLike
That would be my considered view.
LikeLike
Know ye not that your body is the temple of the holy spirit?
All the saved bodies are the temple of god. So what now? None of gods people should have sex?
LikeLike
Not with women who have borne the Son of God, Bosco. So you’re OK.
LikeLike
The maa\marriage bed is not defiled.
LikeLike
Think for a moment Bosco.
You are a righteous man – Joseph. That means you are learned in the Torah and very pious. An angel tells you that your betrothed is with child by God. He tells you the child is the Messiah. So, after He is born you decide to jump her bones – really?? Not very likely Bosco.
LikeLike
You betcha good brother. Your desire for a virgin to worship is stronger than Josephs desire to stay a virgin himself.
LikeLike
No one worships Mary, Bosco, though some odd Protestants have hang ups that way.
Joseph was a righteous man. A righteous man does not defile what is holy. So, Bosco, you either believe in Scripture or you make it up as you go along – which is it to be?
LikeLike
What is holy that Joseph would defile? Mary was his wife for heavens sake. I believe scripture. Mary is a hand maid. Shes not untouchable. Bible doesnt have her as being Holy. Your mind can be holy, your spirit can be holy, but your flesh cannot be holy. Marys body was flesh , which is what it is, human corruptible flesh. There is only one name under heaven given where we might be saved. There is only one person out there that men can call on. There is no one else. But cunningly devised fables will and have popped up to decieve and draw men away from the son of God. I say cunningly because, look at all the gyrations people have to go thru to keep Marys throne in heaven. All i gotta say is, you better hope Mary is who you say she is, or you have wasted a lifetime of prayer.
LikeLike
Bosco, those with no understanding of the sacred are like the colour-blind.
LikeLike
” no one worships Mary”
Does anyone recognize this?
Oh Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke your powerful name, the protection of the living and the salvation of the dying. Purest Mary, let your name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, Blessed Lady, to rescue me whenever I call on you. In my temptations, in my needs, I will never cease to call on you, ever repeating your sacred name, Mary,
Need more? We got more. A lady brought these to my attention just now in another blog. They are called “perpetual nouvena” something or another.
LikeLike
All of which are prayers Bosco – not acts of worship.
LikeLike
The notion that such a man, having been told his wife was with child by God would later have chosen to defile that sacred space is one beyond believing.
I Jewish tradition, I’m not sure that sleeping with your wife was regarded as defilement, divine intervention or not. We can go back to the patriarchal story of Sarah — to be sure a different situation — but I see know reason to believe that marital relations with a woman blessed by God constituted defilement?? A citation is rather needed here Chalcedon
LikeLike
Oh for an edit function! I meant to put one word in bold but it seems to have rather got away on me. And of course the first word of my comment is “In” not “I”
LikeLike
Indeed! But I do think if one stops and thinks about it it is pretty clear cut. Joseph is a righteous man. That meant something – he is compared here with John the Baptist and Simeon in the Temple (such men were often celibate) and with Joseph of Arimathea. These were very hly men with a high sense of what was sacred. The idea he would have thought it fitting to lie with his wife in such circumstances is quite hard to reconcile with the idea of his being righteous.
Why is it that non-Catholics and non-Orthodox even entertain the idea?
LikeLike
Chalcedon – of course, nobody suggests that Joseph would erm ‘demand his marital rights’ under such circumstances, but what if God commanded Joseph that He wanted His son to experience a normal family life? Is that really so out of the question?
LikeLike
If God had wanted it then no. But there is no evidence of that. There is evidence that Joseph was a righteous man who knew his betrothed was with child by God. The inference there would be that she was a sacred vessel of God’s Grace, her womb the holiest of places. The very idea that it would be inhabited by others conceived in sin – well, I think it would have been inconceivable (pun not intended).
LikeLike
Yes good brother Jerry, you make sense. To my good brother chalcedon; parting the red sea is also conceivable. So is a virgin birth. God is in the conceivable business.
LikeLike
conceivable is suppose to read…unconceivable. Dont know how that happened.
LikeLike
This was not a woman blessed by God, this was a woman chosen by God to bear His Son and made pregnant by the Holy Ghost. There is no other example, no comparison with anything else there ever was or ever will be.
Marital relations with a woman impregnated by the Holy Spirit? Would a man called righteous have imagined such a thing?
LikeLike
Seems to me that those that argue otherwise are reluctant to accept the supernatural occurrence for what it was. I think of Joseph as taking on a vicarious role representing the Father, with Mary, filled with the Holy Ghost acting (in both the as the love of the Father and the Son. In that way the supernatural and the natural are forever entwined in the Holy Family.
LikeLike
Yes. We are here, and they were there, in the presence of a great and holy mystery.
It is clear Joseph jumped to the obvious conclusion to begin with. Indeed one of the early Pagan accusations was that Jesus was the child of a Roman legionary, so it was known that He was not the child of Joseph.
A righteous man would not have stood proxy for the child of another man. He would, in all probability have had his erring betrothed stoned. Joseph, being merciful, just wanted to put her aside.
That he did not do so, and that he acted as the earthly father was the result of the visit of the Angel. Short of an account instructing this righteous man to indulge in normal marital relations, it seems logical to assume he would have refrained.
LikeLike
Marital relations with a woman impregnated by the Holy Spirit? Would a man called righteous have imagined such a thing?
Depends on how she looks. if shes a hunny bunny its a go. if shes hurtin, never mind.
LikeLike
I suppose the concept of bad taste is one unknown in California?
LikeLike
Yes ….. a similar thought (about California) occurred to me 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed 🙂
LikeLike
The church plainly believes that Mary ever virgin is the new Ark of the Covenant.
The old ark held the food sent from heaven, the staff holding the bronze snake who could be look on and be healed, the laws written in stone.
Mary as the New Ark, held the true food from heaven, the staff of life you could look on and be healed, and the laws to written into men’s hearts.
What happened when the men with the ark stumbled and a man reached out to steady it, with no doubt the best will in the world. HE DIED.
Mary is the Ark of New Covenant, Joesph was a man whose wife had been set aside by the Angel and Holy Spirit. We are told there is an outward sign of an internal event, What would have Mary appear to those with opened eyes.
Me personally I would not be touching any ark, period, kneeling yes touching no.
LikeLike
Me too!
LikeLike
Tom – seems to me that it would even be difficult for them to have a nice lunch together if Joseph was kneeling before her the whole time.
LikeLike
Well, you know what they say Jock, women want to be put on a pedestal and then complain that your under their feet the whole time 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I think Joesph is not the person we think of. Joesph must have been very special to be selected to be the protector of Jesus and his mother Mary. We think that not to have sex is horrible, but it has always been part of Judaism to become celibate for both sexes as a holy gift. This could not be a hardship because was given was greater then what was lost. In America we had the shakers, who gave us beautiful music, but no offspring. We are men and a man is selected to give his life for those we love. If fact what man would not willing not give up his life to save a unknown child from death. Joesph was selected by God, not be me. No offense but I think you are thinking as a 20th century man, not of a the man we call Joesph set aside by God, before the beginning of the world.
LikeLike
Tom – with respect, I don’t think you’ve read what I wrote on this thread.
1) I started with the reference to brothers in John 7. This clearly wasn’t ‘brother’ in the sense of people with some sort of affinity with each other, because none of those in the John 7 reference believed in Jesus.
I therefore considered Chalcedon’s interpretation of ‘brother’ there unlikely, because it would include James and John bar Zebedee (two disciples, who did not fall into the category of those mocking Jesus as in the John 7 reference).
2) Having decided that the ‘cousin’ thing didn’t quite add up, I suggested that the brothers might be real brothers, because perhaps God wanted His only begotten Son to be brought up in a normal family (rather than the sort of spoilt brat that one tends to associate with only children).
I don’t think I brought carnal activities into it. If you’re looking for a poster who thinks that Joseph was in some sense deprived because he didn’t get a chance to engage in George Best’s favourite subject, then you should try reading Bosco’s posts.
LikeLike
Jock – on John 7, if, as I have argued, it was Mary of Clopas’ family with which Jesus lived, the John may even have been making a point. One set of cousins followed, the set closest to Him didn’t.
LikeLike
Yes – I can see that might be a solution to the John 7 reference.
LikeLike
Thank you Jock. There is so much we do not know. You are correct in your assertion that none of it should have an effect on our faith.
LikeLike
Good brother Chalcedon says its unthinkable for Joseph to have sex with such a holy lady. The days are long and the nites are even longer. Joseph wasnt in on the agenda that his wife was a vestile virgin. Why arent Jesusu sibs mentioned at the wedding and elsewhere in early life? My guess is, they werent the subject of the gospels. They are mentioned later in life, and plenty of times. According to the Ever Virgin worshipers, every man and female walking down the street were Jesus brothers ands sisters. When Jesus was in some house and his brothers and sisters were outside calling for him, i guess that means any ol body was out there calling him
Someone already mentioned that the CC brought in tons of pagan practices in order to draw in more souls. Diana statues were dubbed Mary, Tammuz was then Mary and baby. Virgin worship was added. Now, here in todays time, the followers have the burden of proving all this chaos. Thats why you will see verbal acrobatics and alot of the word; “therefor” used, as in good brother Mark Sheas books on Mary, all three of which he sent me and i read. So, if you worship a Queen of Heaven, you have to get busy justifying it in the light of scripture, and one has to work hard, because these ideas the bible says , god hates. So, the only thing left is to simply say, god loves it, dont pay attention to the scriptures, they dont mean what they say.
LikeLike
Bosco. If you read through, you’ll see the brothers were his cousins.
It isn’t a case of Mary being a very holy lady (though she was) it is a case of what a righteous Jew would do. A righteous Jew would respect what is holy and leave it undefiled.
If, as seems likely, Jesus lived with his cousins they would have been seen by most as his brothers. If he had real ones, why did he defy Jewish custom and leave the care of his mother to one of his cousins?
You see, Bosco, your argument, in so far as there is one, rests on insisting that adelfos means one thing. It means you have to ignore all the arguments I have put forward, which then makes nonsense of Joseph being righteous,and Jesus leaving his mother in the casre of St John.
My arguments fit with Scripture, yours fit with your view that a Greek word with menay meanings has to have the onw upon which you insist. That’s not an argument, it is an assertion in search of one.
No one worships Mary, Bosco.
LikeLike
Good brother Chalcedon, after giving it some thought and looking at your ideas, its plausible that Jesus lived with cousins and Mary never had kids.
Most protestants dont flinch when at christmas time, the word virgin Mary is bantered about. Yes, thats the virgin Mary with baby Jesus on the Xmas card, how nice. Then ask a protestant if Jesus has brothers. if he or she has read the NT, they will say, …well yes, he had bros and sis, iguess. So is she still a virgin? We, in the prot world look at Mary as the mother of the baby Jesus, cause its nice and its on our cards we send out, but only once a yr. We dont think about Mary til Xmas time, and then we see her as the virgin Mary.
What i will do, is ask a few people i trust, and who have studied the greek in seminaries, wht they think. I know what i think, but ill get a second opinion.
Why do i keep changing to Bozoboy? I am Bosco the all seeing and all knowing.
LikeLike
Mary is the mother of the Saviour of the World Bosco. If that means nothing to you, it means nothing. Most men are fond of their mother, so you’d better hope that Jesus isn’t one of them, given the way you talk about her.
LikeLike
Mary Immaculate, star of the morning. Chosen before the creation began, Destined to bring through the light of your dawning, conquest of Satan and rescue to man. Bend from your throne at the voice of our crying. Look to this earth, where your footsteps have trod. Stretch out your arms to us, living and dying. Mary Immaculate, Mother of God. Grant us the shield of your mighty protection. Measure your aid by the depth of our need. Bend from your throne at the voice of our crying. Look to this earth, where your footsteps have trod. Stretch out your arms to us, living and dying. Mary Immaculate, Mother of God.
” No one worships Mary Bosco”
If god had a mother, id worship her.
LikeLike
Jesus has a mother Bosco, and Jesus is the Son of God.
LikeLike
Bosco – “ask a Protestant if Jesus has brothers.”
How about Luther, Bosco. Do you consider him protestant enough”? How about these sermons etc. from Luther:
“Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him… “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).”
“He, 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. (Ibid.)”
“God says… “Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).”
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis – I’m not sure about Luther. His ‘conversion’ experience was rather strange – seeing the Virgin Mary as he was struck by lightning or something like that.
Anyway, he never got kicked out of the Catholic church for his lectures on Romans, which basically contains his whole theological base.
LikeLike
Hi Jock. Well, though I commented on this before, the following is interesting:
Martin Luther believed that Mary did not have other children and did not have any marital relations with Joseph. The Latin text of the 1537 Smalcald Articles, written by Martin Luther, used the term “Ever Virgin” to refer to Mary.[68] The perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther’s lifelong belief, even after he rejected other Marian doctrines.[68][71][72]
Huldrych Zwingli directly supported perpetual virginity and wrote: “I firmly believe that [Mary], … forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”[73] Like Zwingli, the English reformers also supported the concept of perpetual virginity, but often varied on their reasons for the support.[69] Luther and Zwingli’s support of perpetual virginity was endorsed by Heinrich Bullinger and was included in the 1566 Second Helvetic Confession.[74]
John Calvin was less emphatic in his open support of the idea, and neither flatly accepted or rejected it.[69] He cautioned against the idea of “impious speculation” on the topic of perpetual virginity.[74] However, Calvin rejected arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus that were interpreted to imply that Mary had other children.[75]
The Anglican reformers of the 16th and 17th century supported perpetual virginity “on the basis of ancient Christian authority”.[68] In the 18th century, John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, also supported the doctrine and wrote that: “… born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”[68][76][77]
Above was simply taken from Wikipedia – so not that authoritative – although the sources are certainly searchable. My point is that Protestantism has morphed iinto totally divergent beliefs that were not present with the founders of the Reformation. The 35,000 sects have continued to protest from the original protesters and continue to protest from each other. Where I live, we find churches springing up from pastors kicked out of one parish and creating their own Church that siphoned off a good number of adherents who agreed with the pastors teachings. It is much more like a non-ending expansion based on the interpretations of each individual preacher. Seems to be little that ties them to the original Reform.
LikeLike
I don’t think Jock needs convincing on this one, SF, and I don’t think it is possible to convince Bosco.
LikeLike
I suppose not.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis – thanks for this – the accounts are interesting. Of those you listed, I prefer John Calvin’s – except that ‘impious speculations’ can be fun 🙂
I don’t really worry at all about the 35 000 ‘sects’ as you call it (or ‘denominations’ as others might call it). (a) there may well be substantially more agreement between some of those ‘sects’ than between different groupings firmly ensconced within the Church of Rome and (b) even if there isn’t, God has instructed us to use the sanctified mind – and since it is imperfect, different sincere Christians will reach different conclusions (and even if you feel happy with the doctrines of one of these ‘sects’, you might still want to run a mile when they start playing their music).
What interests me, when interacting with you – a former Presbyterian – does this mean that you took the 1647 Westminster confession seriously at some stage? If so, then which parts of it did you turn against and why?
I don’t think that anybody should call themselves a Presbyterian unless they consider that the 1647 Westminster confession presents, on the whole, the basis of their faith. Similarly, I don’t think that someone should call themselves a Baptist unless it is clear that they take the contents of the 1689 confession seriously – as Spurgeon pointed out, there’s a lot more to being a Baptist than simply belonging to a rabble that believes in immersion.
LikeLike
I agree Jock. I could not call myself a Presbyterian by using your standard as I was a poor Presbyterian by any standard. Being a Navy brat, I attended every large denominational church there is at one point or other in my youth. When my mother pressed me to choose a church, I chose the Presbyterian because at the time I liked the preaching of the reverend at the local church. Needless to say, it did not stick and from college on, you could say I was seeking an alternative spirituality. I explored eastern mysticism for quite some time keying into the Tibetan form of Buddhism for quite some time. It was through my study of some of these Buddhist that (unexpectedly) brought me back to Christianity. The Buddhists love St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila and so I read them (through Buddhist spectacles) with not much effect. Some 20 years later I read St. John of the Cross through the lens of the Catholic faith and received a conversion of heart without knowing the answers to many questions I had about the faith. So for 3 years I read the answers for all my questions in the Catechisms available, theologians, lives of saints, Biblical readings etc. until I hungered to count myself a Catholic and to be fed the Bread of Life. So I was a fallen away Christian, not a good and pious Presbyterian. It just happened to be the only prior faith that I actually joined and became a member of. I feel like I just went to confession with you Jock. Can you absolve me? 🙂
LikeLike
I can’t – but Jesus can and has 🙂
LikeLike
I certainly hope so. 🙂
LikeLike
Very true Jock 🙂
LikeLike
Holy Mary
PRAY FOR US
Holy Virgin conceived without sin
PRAY FOR US
Our Mother of Perpetual Help
PRAY FOR US
We sinners call to you
LOVING MOTHER HELP US
No worship there. How silly of me.
LikeLike
Asking someone to pray for you isn’t worship, even WSC used to end his memos with the phrase, “I pray you.” It is asking for help. This brings up something that you can’t handle either Bosco, the Communion of Saints.
LikeLike
There is a qualitative difference between discussing things face to face with somebody living and asking somebody dead to pray for you. Asking somebody dead to intercede on your behalf seems to me a bit like Saul praying to Samuel.
LikeLike
It is no different than has often occurred in Shakespeare’s plays. “I pray thee”or by Churchill’s use of the phrase.
Catholics believe that though the bodies of the Saints are dead their souls are very much alive in Heaven as part of the in the Church Triumphant. This is also true of the souls in Purgatory, the Church Suffering on earth the Church Militant suffer in our earthly bodies. The Churches Triumphant and Suffering can and do pray for the Church Militant and we are asked to join our prayers together with those in the Church Triumphant for the holy souls suffering in Purgatory especially for those who have nobody to -pray from them. This we are asked to do daily, a good way is when reciting the Rosary.
LikeLike
Mentioning the Rosary to Bosco is to invite another bout ‘you worship Mary’ – but almost anything will do that.
LikeLike
Yes good brother Jock, praying to the dead is necromancy and Saul got in big trouble for it. These people equate asking a live person to pray as the same as asking the dead. This is what happens when one doesnt believe one word of scripture. Oh yes, they give it lip service, but their heart is far from it. But, they have the best of the best reasons for all of the anti scriptural practices. Kinda takes my breath away at times. There is an impassible gulf between the living and the dead. I wish i had a penny for every time some one told me that because we bow to kings and queens and loved ones(living), that its a great thing to bow to graven images. This is the weak justification you get from those who know the laws of god but dont believe them.
LikeLike
Where in Scripture does it say the Blessed Virgin is dead Bosco? The tradition of the Church says she was taken into Heaven as was Elijah.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – would you pray to Elijah?
LikeLike
I would certainly do so, as I do to the great cloud of witnesses by whom I am surrounded – Christians pray for each other, they did at the start and they do now.
LikeLike
….. and would Elijah give a different answer from the one Samuel gave Saul? (which was essentially ‘I’m now in the great retirement home in the sky – don’t bother me’)
LikeLike
We shall find out one day.
LikeLike
Good brother Chalcedon, i use the word dead for anyone not here on earth any more. Personally i believe she is with the lord and alive, as are all the people that died in Christ. But for us, they are dead. Elijah was taken up, scripture is clear there. I firmly believe scripture would mention anyone who got such a high honor. Mary being taken up is catholic invention. There are those who take inventions as gospel. But to do that, they disregard the bible and take fables as gospel.
LikeLike
Bosco – I agree – using Chalcedon’s own arguments!
Chalcedon – on the post where you showed sympathy towards JAT Robinson’s dating of the gospels, you said that they must have been written before AD 70, otherwise the catastrophe at Jerusalem would have been mentioned.
I find the fact that they didn’t find some way to incorporate into Scripture such a momentus event as the assumption of Mary (if indeed it happened) rather striking.
By AD 70 Mary would have been, say, 90 (if she had still been alive) …. if you take the view that the assumption took place after all the books were written, then you have an extremely early dating of the whole NT.
LikeLike
As you can see from my piece on John, I do indeed take such a view.
LikeLike
Your definition of dead is an earthly one Bosco – you ignore the great cloud of witnesses by whom we are surrounded.
LikeLike
Good brother Chalcedon, this cloud of witnesses, where did you get that, im afraid to ask? Im going to guess its more extra biblical stuff. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Try Hebrews 12:1 Bosco. Unless you are one of those who would exclude Hebrews because it is not by Paul, it is a Biblical source.
LikeLike
I don’t see the instructions to pray to them.
LikeLike
Nor do I see one forbidding it.
LikeLike
True, not explicitly.
I always take Jesus preface to the Lord’s Prayer to mean, ‘when you pray, this is how to go about it.’ He then indicates that prayers should be offered to God the father and then shows us the topics about which we should be praying.
I don’t see examples in Scripture where prayers are offered to anyone other than God.
You’re right though – no specific injunction against it.
LikeLike
We are asking them to pray for us, Jock, not praying to them, of course. ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.’ Paul asks others to pray for him, and we tend to ask others to pray for us, as Pope Francis did. It is another act of communion with each other, part of the love we share and show to each other. The Church has long practised intercessory prayer. Yes, there’s you and God, but we are also part of a woder community, and it’s nice to get othe involved too.
LikeLike
Agreed ….. except that I don’t see any example in Scripture of involving those who have already passed from this life to the next.
The Communion of Saints is important – but for intercessionary prayer, I only see examples of this on the ‘horizontal’ level; I don’t see examples of this at the ‘vertical’ level (involving those who have already passed on).
LikeLike
True, but again, what is the harm in asking those resting in Abraham’s bosom to pray for us?
LikeLike
Here my answer is based on psychology rather than anything from Scripture.
If you discuss things with fellow Christians present here and now, you’re more likely to get a good response before you start praying and get a better idea of what you should be praying about.
If you ask somebody who has passed on to the next life, you’re more likely to impute your own ideas to them and convince yourself that they agree with you.
The ‘Communion of Saints’ at the horizontal level is something real and practical; I see a danger if people substitute talking to ‘live’ fellow Christians for talking to those who have passed on.
LikeLike
I shouldn’t many people who substitute one for the other Jock – it ia a question of why stick to one when you can have both?
LikeLike
Chalcedon – my main problem with all of this is the following. If you venerate Mary and the saints and pray to them asking them to intercede on your behalf, then I find it very difficult to see the difference between this theistic system and those that the entire Old Testament is supposed to be a polemic against.
That is why I personally avoid it.
Elijah prayed to God asking him to shut up the heavens and there was no rain for three and a half years. He didn’t make prayers to Moses asking him to intercede on his behalf.
There is simply no recorded example of this ever happening. Hence my extreme caution.
I’m not aware of a great Ladbrookes in the sky – so I don’t see how we can place bets on this.
LikeLike
You are cautious because it does not fit with your reading of the Bible. I am not because it fits with what the Church has done for nearly two thousand years. I am happy to go with the Holy Spirit, and so are you.
LikeLike
What did the very people who gave us the bible believe? Perpetual virginity! “Pray for us Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ”. Mary gave herself completely to Define Providence and still does, she prays that we conform ourselves to her Son. How can asking her push us along on this journey be wrong i’ll never understand. Bosco at times seems a rather crass fellow. Cheers. Ronald Knox pray for us!
LikeLike
Bosco – I never understood, Mary, until I read the Left Behind series. This is protestant thinking. They knew they must not spit on Mary, but not honor her either as you can not honor her, so they weaseled out. They gave her a gold crown as the last resurrected from death, from the fires that burnt away, leaving her gifts. This was before the massive throne of Christ.
I saw then Mary’s gift to me, Mary keeps Jesus human, he is not a distant God on a massive throne as in Protestant theology, but he is my brother, as he called me, he is the son of Mary. I may too be his brother. This is why I believe in the catholic understanding of Mary. God is the God of the living not the dead. Protestantism’ God is not a God of the living but the God of the dead. Protestants is a religion of time, this God they see is not the master of time, but its slave. God does not stand outside time, he is but a Greek God writ large by protestants. Bosco you are wrong.
If I love Christ, I must love his mother, if I honor Him I must honor her.
LikeLike
Good brother Tom, you understand Mary better now? Well, thats admirable. Theres not enough about Mary in the bible to fill a fortune cookie. Yesterday i went to my house and got my 3 books about Mary that Mark Shea sent me. He ask for my address and sent me his 3 books free. He said he wanted to educate me On Mary. I made notes. Lots of good history in them. Later, i will post some stuff from his books.
Mary is great, so are lots of players in the bible. Thats all they are, is bit players. Did John the baptist float up to heaven and get a throne? Theres only one throne in heaven. Ive been called as being nasty to Mary. Mary cant hear me, and i do not know any Mary. I know of Jesus mother Mary from the bible. But thats it.
LikeLike
My grandmother would have said something about taking a button and sewing a suit of clothes onto it…
LikeLike
You can get some quite impressive buttons that are worthy of a suit of clothes!
LikeLike
Good brother Chalcedon, that great cloud of witnesses are the living people who view these new christians, the man on the street, your family, your friends. The christian is exhorted to behave himself in front of such a great cloud of witnesses. Go back and read Heb 12 ;1. No inference that they are spirits. It talks of the way christians are to act .
LikeLike
Nope, I looked, it doesn’t say what you say it says Bosco.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Virgin Mary | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: On families, sins & the like | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: How many women were at the foot of the Cross? | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: War of Ideas (4) | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: Our Lady, Scripture – and Bosco – a word or two | All Along the Watchtower