The New Testament writers would have used the words for "cousin" if they had meant "cousin" in passages about Jesus' brothers and sisters
Persistent commentor "Guy Fawkes" / Jim wrote:
"Brothers" does not have to mean uterine brother.
Ken Temple: (with addition comments)
Except when the context demands it.
συγγενις
Also, Luke calls Elizabeth a relative or cousin of Mary - sungenis = συγγενις = kinswoman, relative
Luke 1:36
The Greek has words for cousin, kinsman/kinswoman and relative.
καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνειληφυῖα υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς, καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ·
"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month" Luke 1:36
sungenis / συγγενις means "kinswoman", "relative"
ανεψιος
If the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were cousins, the NT writers would have used those words.
But it would make no sense for Jesus to be making the spiritual application and saying, "My true cousins are those that do the will of God"
Matthew 12:46-50 and parallels in Luke 8:19-21 and Mark 6:3; see also, John 7:3-10; cf. Matthew 13:55-57
only uterine/blood brothers makes sense.
ανεψιος / anepsios
John Mark is Barnabas' cousin. Colossians 4:10
anepsios = cousin
καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ
Mark, the cousin of Barnabas
That is an even more specific word; so the NT writers would have used those words if the passages of "brothers and sisters" of Jesus meant "cousins".
Your argument is refuted and defeated again.
Showing posts with label perpetual virginity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perpetual virginity. Show all posts
Friday, January 02, 2015
Thursday, January 01, 2015
The heos hou / ἕως οὗ construction in the New Testament proves the RC Perpetual Virginity of Mary dogma wrong
Who is My Mother? by Eric Svendsen
I answered the very persistent and redundant "Guy Fawkes" / Jim, who lives in Portugal and apparently has lots of time to keep repeating himself, after being refuted many times, in a combox: (with additional comments)
Regarding Matthew 1:18 - "before they came together"
and
Matthew 1:25 - Joseph "kept her a virgin until" (heos hou / ἕως οὗ ) "she gave birth to a son"
"but
"And
24
25
Note: For those who don't know Greek, the mark above the letter that is like a backwards apostrophe is a breathing mark, "he" or "h" sound. (above the ε in the first word, and above the υ in the second word.)
I just don't have much time to keep repeating this stuff; you seem to have too much time on your hands. You have not done research on the differences between "heos" / 'εως by itself, "heos hou" / 'εως 'ου, and the other prepositional phrases (heos hotou / 'εως 'οτου ; and heos an / 'εως αν, and ἄχρι οὗ / axri hou - see 1 Cor. 15:25) and syntactical constructions - the Greek NT has many different ones, and all the examples that Roman Catholics bring to mean "until, but continuing on after that also" are NOT the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction . They are other constructions.
Guy Fawkes/Jim wrote:
The passages from Matthew you mention are based on the words "before/until".
It is important to stress Jesus had no human father so the word "before" says that and nothing more.
"before they came together" is in the context of marriage - so that means "having sexual intercourse" in marriage. " [ see context: (verse 18) - "betrothed" with intention of getting married; "Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife" (verse 20); "Joseph did as the angel commanded him, and took her as his wife" (verse 24), "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son . . . " (verse 25)]
Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
"Until" does not need to mean a change took place after a particular event.
But it does in this context. As Eric Svendsen has definitively demonstrated,
"This construction [of heos hou / 'εως 'ου] is used in Matthew 1:25 and so is of special interest here. It occurs only seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two of these have the meaning "while" (Matthew 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".(Svendsen, Who is My Mother? page 52)
On page 251 he lists all the occurrances in the NT of the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction with the English verses typed out. It is a lot to type out, but with the verse thingy that James put in here, I can type the verse references and then you can hover over them to see:
Matthew 1:25
Matthew 13:33
Matthew 14:22 (while)
Matthew 17:9
Matthew 18:34
Matthew 26:36 (while)
Luke 13:21
Luke 15:8
Luke 22:18
Luke 24:49
John 13:38
Acts 21:26
Acts 23:12
Acts 23:14
Acts 23:21
Acts 25:21
2 Peter 1:19
You will have to go to http://biblewebapp.com/study/
or some other place to see the Greek constructions.
Svendsen also goes through all the LXX constructions; but this is enough to prove you wrong.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Just like Mary and Joseph!
Christian couple maintains abstinence through first two years of marriage
Man, I really admire those people. What discipline it must require!
Man, I really admire those people. What discipline it must require!
Monday, August 06, 2012
In The Gospel according to John, the apostle’s use of Psalm 69 implies that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s other sons.
This is re-publishing an older article I had written in 2009, with some changes.
Psalm 69:8-9 (English Standard Version)
"I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me."
(also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)
Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:
John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)
John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)
John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)
In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.
These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”. This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.
By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.
The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)
Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects verse 8 and "my mother's sons" to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)
John 7:3-9 :
So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.
Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)
They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).
So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.
A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.
Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.
Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (the prophesy of the giving of gall to the Messiah fulfilled in all the gospels at the cross in the same context that Jesus gives His mother to John and not his physical half-brothers - Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.
So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.
It is a man-made tradition.
Psalm 69:8-9 (English Standard Version)
"I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me."
(also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)
Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:
John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)
John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)
John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)
In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.
These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”. This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.
By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.
The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)
Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects verse 8 and "my mother's sons" to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)
John 7:3-9 :
So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.
Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)
They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).
So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.
A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.
Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.
Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (the prophesy of the giving of gall to the Messiah fulfilled in all the gospels at the cross in the same context that Jesus gives His mother to John and not his physical half-brothers - Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.
So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.
It is a man-made tradition.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Luther was Wrong, a Roman Catholic Saint was Right
Thomas More, beheaded and later ushered into Romanist sainthood: "formally beatified by Pope Leo XIII, in the Decree of 29 December, 1886" and "canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935," actually made an argument against Luther that warmed my heart.If Luther is willing to accept nothing except what is plainly set down in Scripture, why does he believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? There is nothing to prove this in Scripture and Helvidius actually took it upon himself to prove the contrary, relying on no other authority than that of Scripture.
Thomas More, "An Answer to Martin Luther," The Essential Thomas More (Canada: Mentor-Omega Books, 1967), p. 112.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
"Bride of Christ" takes on a whole new meaning
In the combox of the recent post on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Pilgrimsarbour raised two questions, one of which was:
From Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical, pp 290-291, Fr John Waiss, Opus Dei, made a similar, yet more disgusting statement.
Q: Would God just use Mary?
John Waiss (questioning James McCarthy): Jim, would Jesus ever say to His mother, "What you would have gained from me is Corban" (that is, given to God, see Mark 7:11-12)? Would God just use Mary to bear Him in her womb and then deny any special relationship to His mother?
Jim: No, I wouldn't think so.
Q: Is implying Mary is a harlot offensive to Jesus?
John: The "until" of Matthew 1:25 - that Joseph "knew her not unti [Greek eos]..." - is similar to Jesus' promise to remain with us "until [Greek eos] the completion of the age " (Matthew 28:20, Darby Translation). This doesn't imply He will abandon us afterwards - at least I hope not! What you seem to imply is that Mary plays the harlot by having children by another lover (Joseph in this case) after having Jesus by the Holy Spirit (emph added), since:
If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? ... You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the Lord. --Jeremiah 3:1
If someone implied this of your mother, wouldn't you take offense? Isn't doing the same to Mary a great offense to Jesus?
Jim: Does my claim that Mary had children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus really make her a harlot and Joseph "another lover"? Before drawing such conclusions, note that under Jewish law, Joseph and Mary were already husband and wife. Scr identifies Joseph as Mary's "husband"...Frankly, I think your whole line of reasoning should be abandoned. We cannot apply the terms of human relations to this extraordinary case. Mary and the Holy Spirit were not lovers, were not maried, and did not have sexual relations. No divorce occurred, so Jer 3:1 does not apply. Neither should we question the properity of Joseph and Mary having children. They were legally married, of which the Lord says, "they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). After the birth of Jesus, they had children. What's wrong with that (link added, obviously)?
I was speechless when I read Waiss' statement. What other explanation than that Rome has a bizarre and unhealthy fascination with sex, expressed (again, bizarrely) in selective prudishness:
-For certain grown men, sex is not OK, nor is marriage, but if you do choose to have sex with little boys, the hierarchy will hide your crime and reassign you.
-For Mary, sex with your husband is not OK.
-For Mary, sex with the Holy Spirit is OK. Waiss' view reduces to Greek mythology, or to take a more homegrown example, Mormonism. Yikes.
Do Catholics and Orthodox consider the idea of Joseph and Mary having sexual relations as "adultery," given that Mary was found with child by the Holy Spirit?Matthew Bellisario replied:
Hi Pilgrim. I am not aware of anyone saying that it would have been adultery.Richard Froggatt added:
Pilgrim, If I put myself in Joseph's shoes I wouldn't touch Mary that way, would you? I am being sincere when I say this.I've heard similar sentiments expressed in the past. I'll paraphrase here my friend David Bryan, an EO seminarian - if I were Joseph, I'd have some serious hesitation about having intimacy with a woman whose womb had been inhabited by God Himself.
From Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical, pp 290-291, Fr John Waiss, Opus Dei, made a similar, yet more disgusting statement.
Q: Would God just use Mary?
John Waiss (questioning James McCarthy): Jim, would Jesus ever say to His mother, "What you would have gained from me is Corban" (that is, given to God, see Mark 7:11-12)? Would God just use Mary to bear Him in her womb and then deny any special relationship to His mother?
Jim: No, I wouldn't think so.
Q: Is implying Mary is a harlot offensive to Jesus?
John: The "until" of Matthew 1:25 - that Joseph "knew her not unti [Greek eos]..." - is similar to Jesus' promise to remain with us "until [Greek eos] the completion of the age " (Matthew 28:20, Darby Translation). This doesn't imply He will abandon us afterwards - at least I hope not! What you seem to imply is that Mary plays the harlot by having children by another lover (Joseph in this case) after having Jesus by the Holy Spirit (emph added), since:
If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? ... You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the Lord. --Jeremiah 3:1
If someone implied this of your mother, wouldn't you take offense? Isn't doing the same to Mary a great offense to Jesus?
Jim: Does my claim that Mary had children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus really make her a harlot and Joseph "another lover"? Before drawing such conclusions, note that under Jewish law, Joseph and Mary were already husband and wife. Scr identifies Joseph as Mary's "husband"...Frankly, I think your whole line of reasoning should be abandoned. We cannot apply the terms of human relations to this extraordinary case. Mary and the Holy Spirit were not lovers, were not maried, and did not have sexual relations. No divorce occurred, so Jer 3:1 does not apply. Neither should we question the properity of Joseph and Mary having children. They were legally married, of which the Lord says, "they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). After the birth of Jesus, they had children. What's wrong with that (link added, obviously)?
I was speechless when I read Waiss' statement. What other explanation than that Rome has a bizarre and unhealthy fascination with sex, expressed (again, bizarrely) in selective prudishness:
-For certain grown men, sex is not OK, nor is marriage, but if you do choose to have sex with little boys, the hierarchy will hide your crime and reassign you.
-For Mary, sex with your husband is not OK.
-For Mary, sex with the Holy Spirit is OK. Waiss' view reduces to Greek mythology, or to take a more homegrown example, Mormonism. Yikes.
Monday, August 31, 2009
In The Gospel according to John, the apostle’s use of Psalm 69 implies that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s other sons.
Psalm 69:8-9 (English Standard Version)
"I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me."
(also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)
Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:
John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)
John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)
John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)
In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.
These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”. This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.
By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.
The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)
Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects it to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)
John 7:3-9 :
So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.
Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)
They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).
So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.
A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.
Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.
Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.
So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.
It is a man-made tradition.
"I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me."
(also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)
Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:
John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)
John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)
John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)
In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.
In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.
These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”. This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.
By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.
The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)
Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects it to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)
John 7:3-9 :
So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.
Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)
They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).
So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.
A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.
Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.
Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.
So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.
It is a man-made tradition.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A Roman Catholic Trying to Argue for Perpetual Virginity of Mary
A Roman Catholic writes:
We are required to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, meaning that she was always a virgin and had no other children, and that Jesus' birth was a miraculous one, not (far as I know without checking) in any particular hypothesis accounting for the exact nature of the relationship of these persons called Jesus' "brothers" in Scripture, according to standard Hebrew / Aramaic cultural custom.
The problem with the Aramaic/Hebrew/cousins argument is that the NT books were written in Greek; and there is a specific word for "cousin" in Greek, used in Colossians 4:10
Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ
Mark the cousin of Barnabas
cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)
If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used the word for “cousin”.
Also, there are other words for close relative, cousin, as in Luke 1:36 "your relative Elizabeth"
Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς
sungenis (English phonetics) The double gamma, "g" is pronouned "ng".
Also, in Matthew 12:49-50 - the point would be lost, if he meant "cousins", because Jesus makes the point that His true spiritual brothers are disciples, believers; and His blood (half) brothers were not believers at that time. ( John 7:5 "for even His brothers were not believing in Him.") This point, Tertullian argues in Against Marcion 4:19. He is more ancient than the later "ever-Virgin" texts of other early church fathers; so this position, that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after Jesus was born, is the one that is deeper in history.
In Hebrews 2:10-11, it says, ". . . for which reason His is not ashamed to call them brothers." (those who are sanctified, the believers, who trust Him (v. 13)
In Matthew 12:50 - He is making this point, the true brothers are those that believe and obey and do the will of God; not His physical brothers who don't believe.
Galatians and Corinthians were Greek/Gentile areas, they did not speak Aramaic, so even more reason for those books to use the word "cousin" (anepsios) if James was his cousin. But no, he calls him "the Lord's brother". Galatians 1:19
The whole RC argument for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary falls flat.
Also, Psalm 69:8-9 seems to point to His brothers being His mother's sons. Psalm 69 has lots of Messianic prophecy in it; though not all of it applies to Christ, obviously verse 5 does not apply to Jesus.
"I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Thy House has consumed Me, and the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on Me." (see John 2:17; Romans 15:3; and also John 15:25)
Hebrew parallelism "brothers" = "mother's sons"
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about Jesus, because He was sinless, but one cannot deny that there are many other verses in Psalm 69 that are Messianic and many quotes from this Psalm are about Jesus Himself. (see also Psalm 69:21 (in John 19:28-30)
Another Roman Catholic commenter wrote:
If Mary had male children other than Jesus, it would have been a HUGE insult to them for Jesus to entrust her care to the apostle John who was not a "blood" relation.
Jesus does not mind offending people. His brothers were already offended and insulted by Jesus in Mark 6:3. This is not a big deal for Jesus to offend His brothers, since they were unbelievers and, again, He is not ashamed to call believers, His brothers. Heb. 2:11
So, He is ashamed to call His real brothers, "brothers" (at the cross) and does not honor them with the care of Mary; but gives her to a faithful believer, John.
So, giving His mother to John, a believer, a true disciple, a true spiritual brother, was the right thing to do, considering his physical brothers were not believers at that point. They became believers at or after the resurrection. (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19)
So, Jesus is not ashamed to call John his brother from the cross over His physical half-brothers, shaming them, because of their unbelief. (see also Matthew 10:32-40)
Eric Svendsen's book, Who is My Mother? Soundly and thoroughly refutes the RC apologetic for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Rhology had a post on the PVM also some time ago. He provides some good links to further refutations of the PVM.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/marriage-bed-is-defiled.html
We are required to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, meaning that she was always a virgin and had no other children, and that Jesus' birth was a miraculous one, not (far as I know without checking) in any particular hypothesis accounting for the exact nature of the relationship of these persons called Jesus' "brothers" in Scripture, according to standard Hebrew / Aramaic cultural custom.
The problem with the Aramaic/Hebrew/cousins argument is that the NT books were written in Greek; and there is a specific word for "cousin" in Greek, used in Colossians 4:10
Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ
Mark the cousin of Barnabas
cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)
If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used the word for “cousin”.
Also, there are other words for close relative, cousin, as in Luke 1:36 "your relative Elizabeth"
Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς
sungenis (English phonetics) The double gamma, "g" is pronouned "ng".
Also, in Matthew 12:49-50 - the point would be lost, if he meant "cousins", because Jesus makes the point that His true spiritual brothers are disciples, believers; and His blood (half) brothers were not believers at that time. ( John 7:5 "for even His brothers were not believing in Him.") This point, Tertullian argues in Against Marcion 4:19. He is more ancient than the later "ever-Virgin" texts of other early church fathers; so this position, that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after Jesus was born, is the one that is deeper in history.
In Hebrews 2:10-11, it says, ". . . for which reason His is not ashamed to call them brothers." (those who are sanctified, the believers, who trust Him (v. 13)
In Matthew 12:50 - He is making this point, the true brothers are those that believe and obey and do the will of God; not His physical brothers who don't believe.
Galatians and Corinthians were Greek/Gentile areas, they did not speak Aramaic, so even more reason for those books to use the word "cousin" (anepsios) if James was his cousin. But no, he calls him "the Lord's brother". Galatians 1:19
The whole RC argument for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary falls flat.
Also, Psalm 69:8-9 seems to point to His brothers being His mother's sons. Psalm 69 has lots of Messianic prophecy in it; though not all of it applies to Christ, obviously verse 5 does not apply to Jesus.
"I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Thy House has consumed Me, and the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on Me." (see John 2:17; Romans 15:3; and also John 15:25)
Hebrew parallelism "brothers" = "mother's sons"
Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about Jesus, because He was sinless, but one cannot deny that there are many other verses in Psalm 69 that are Messianic and many quotes from this Psalm are about Jesus Himself. (see also Psalm 69:21 (in John 19:28-30)
Another Roman Catholic commenter wrote:
If Mary had male children other than Jesus, it would have been a HUGE insult to them for Jesus to entrust her care to the apostle John who was not a "blood" relation.
Jesus does not mind offending people. His brothers were already offended and insulted by Jesus in Mark 6:3. This is not a big deal for Jesus to offend His brothers, since they were unbelievers and, again, He is not ashamed to call believers, His brothers. Heb. 2:11
So, He is ashamed to call His real brothers, "brothers" (at the cross) and does not honor them with the care of Mary; but gives her to a faithful believer, John.
So, giving His mother to John, a believer, a true disciple, a true spiritual brother, was the right thing to do, considering his physical brothers were not believers at that point. They became believers at or after the resurrection. (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19)
So, Jesus is not ashamed to call John his brother from the cross over His physical half-brothers, shaming them, because of their unbelief. (see also Matthew 10:32-40)
Eric Svendsen's book, Who is My Mother? Soundly and thoroughly refutes the RC apologetic for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Rhology had a post on the PVM also some time ago. He provides some good links to further refutations of the PVM.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/marriage-bed-is-defiled.html
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The marriage bed is defiled
I was directed to this article on the Perpetual Virginity by an EO priest and decided to run through it.
He says:
Why not believe in her ever-virginity?
B/c the preponderance of the biblical testimony is against it, but in a way he's right b/c it's not a big deal either way.
The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.
To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.
This is a ridiculous thing to say.
Hebrews 13: 4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Look at that - it is to be held IN HONOR among all. So, Mary and Joseph did not engage in some honorable activity that was available to them?
In fact, not only available, but necessary:
1 Cor 7:2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
To say that "Well, Mary wouldn't be subject to those immoralities, wouldn't be prone to that kind of temptation" is to engage in wishful speculation. The standing command is, if you're married and physically able, you engage in marital conjugal relations, and that is honorable, commanded, good, and undefiled.
An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses "separated himself"
I suppose that might matter if 1st-century popular rabbinical traditions (kinda like the one that Jesus condemned in Mark 7:1-13) were to be our authority. There is no indication of this in the OT text.
they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ.
Popular piety at the time of Christ also led to incredible hypocrisy of action, where great crowds followed Christ around so that He'd heal them and feed them, yet walked away from Him when He gave them hard teaching in John 6, shouted Hosanna and fêted him with palm branches when He entered Jerusalem, yet screamed "Crucify Him!! His blood be on us and on our children!" a few days later.
Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?
Yes, of course! Now, were you going to discuss the question of Mary's perpetual virginity sometime?
Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion?
With the Son of God in her household? No, of course not. She "treasured up all these things in her heart." Now, about her perpetual virginity...?
Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).
And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary? Does anyone in the NT ever do that?
The Temple was also profaned and destroyed by foreign invaders, and later rebuilt. It was profaned by Judan kings who set up false idols inside. The high priest could enter once a year. How are these things paralleled in Mary's life? Or is it just the case that he is making specious parallels?
If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life
B/c God had specifically commanded how the Ark was to be carried, and they weren't doing it that way. Where is the command about not touching Mary?
Uzzah's touching it was defiling and dishonorable, but as we've seen, the marriage bed is UNdefiled and is honorable. So the analogy is way off.
Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!
Notice the implicit swipe at Mary's virtue here. It's not Joseph's place to "request" it, it's Mary's responsibility to offer and participate wholeheartedly, just like it was Joseph's. I thought Mary was all-virtuous and the most obedient woman who ever lived.
The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.
But there is at least one Greek term that can easily be used to mean "more distant male relative", but (edit for clarity in green) there is only the one whose semantic range includes "brother".
Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers.
Let me recommend Eric Svendsen's discussion of this in his book Who Is My Mother?.
Also:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Streaming audio of James White and Eric Svendsen debate pre-heresy Gerry Matatics on this issue
The Meaning of "Firstborn"
Here he is attempting to cast doubt on the transparent meaning of "firstborn". This is a vague answer to a weak argument against the PV of the BVM.
our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her?
B/c "even His brothers (oops, I mean distant cousins) were not believing in Him". He devotes her to the motherhood of a believing disciple.
Mary's ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level.
Here this unbelieving, disobedient priest bucks against the rightful authority that he should heed, the RCC. Just saying.
Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages.
Well, either that or God knew all the possible options from the beginning of the world but didn't know for sure how it would play out, but worked it toward His purpose to make it happen. Thankfully, it did all work out.
She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful.
then
she is the great example
Notice the extremes, the false dilemma. Either she was the perpetually virgin, or she was an article that is no longer useful. One thing I appreciate about these kinds of views is how they lift up the every-day believer. What room is there for my wife, for example, to be encouraged by Mary's example, since she has apparently abased herself before my requests to conjugal relations (to use this priest's words) and therefore is an article that is less useful to God. How exactly is this supposed to be the grand inspiration to anyone?
Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
"What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace."
This, friends, is but one more illustration of why the Reformation was and continues to be so important.
He says:
Why not believe in her ever-virginity?
B/c the preponderance of the biblical testimony is against it, but in a way he's right b/c it's not a big deal either way.
The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.
To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.
This is a ridiculous thing to say.
Hebrews 13: 4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Look at that - it is to be held IN HONOR among all. So, Mary and Joseph did not engage in some honorable activity that was available to them?
In fact, not only available, but necessary:
1 Cor 7:2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
To say that "Well, Mary wouldn't be subject to those immoralities, wouldn't be prone to that kind of temptation" is to engage in wishful speculation. The standing command is, if you're married and physically able, you engage in marital conjugal relations, and that is honorable, commanded, good, and undefiled.
An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses "separated himself"
I suppose that might matter if 1st-century popular rabbinical traditions (kinda like the one that Jesus condemned in Mark 7:1-13) were to be our authority. There is no indication of this in the OT text.
they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ.
Popular piety at the time of Christ also led to incredible hypocrisy of action, where great crowds followed Christ around so that He'd heal them and feed them, yet walked away from Him when He gave them hard teaching in John 6, shouted Hosanna and fêted him with palm branches when He entered Jerusalem, yet screamed "Crucify Him!! His blood be on us and on our children!" a few days later.
Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?
Yes, of course! Now, were you going to discuss the question of Mary's perpetual virginity sometime?
Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion?
With the Son of God in her household? No, of course not. She "treasured up all these things in her heart." Now, about her perpetual virginity...?
Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).
And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary? Does anyone in the NT ever do that?
The Temple was also profaned and destroyed by foreign invaders, and later rebuilt. It was profaned by Judan kings who set up false idols inside. The high priest could enter once a year. How are these things paralleled in Mary's life? Or is it just the case that he is making specious parallels?
If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life
B/c God had specifically commanded how the Ark was to be carried, and they weren't doing it that way. Where is the command about not touching Mary?
Uzzah's touching it was defiling and dishonorable, but as we've seen, the marriage bed is UNdefiled and is honorable. So the analogy is way off.
Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!
Notice the implicit swipe at Mary's virtue here. It's not Joseph's place to "request" it, it's Mary's responsibility to offer and participate wholeheartedly, just like it was Joseph's. I thought Mary was all-virtuous and the most obedient woman who ever lived.
The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.
But there is at least one Greek term that can easily be used to mean "more distant male relative", but (edit for clarity in green) there is only the one whose semantic range includes "brother".
Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers.
Let me recommend Eric Svendsen's discussion of this in his book Who Is My Mother?.
Also:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Streaming audio of James White and Eric Svendsen debate pre-heresy Gerry Matatics on this issue
The Meaning of "Firstborn"
Here he is attempting to cast doubt on the transparent meaning of "firstborn". This is a vague answer to a weak argument against the PV of the BVM.
our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her?
B/c "even His brothers (oops, I mean distant cousins) were not believing in Him". He devotes her to the motherhood of a believing disciple.
Mary's ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level.
Here this unbelieving, disobedient priest bucks against the rightful authority that he should heed, the RCC. Just saying.
Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages.
Well, either that or God knew all the possible options from the beginning of the world but didn't know for sure how it would play out, but worked it toward His purpose to make it happen. Thankfully, it did all work out.
She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful.
then
she is the great example
Notice the extremes, the false dilemma. Either she was the perpetually virgin, or she was an article that is no longer useful. One thing I appreciate about these kinds of views is how they lift up the every-day believer. What room is there for my wife, for example, to be encouraged by Mary's example, since she has apparently abased herself before my requests to conjugal relations (to use this priest's words) and therefore is an article that is less useful to God. How exactly is this supposed to be the grand inspiration to anyone?
Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
"What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace."
This, friends, is but one more illustration of why the Reformation was and continues to be so important.
Monday, September 08, 2008
A Marian conversation
I recently exchanged a series of emails with a commenter who frequents our comboxes, of the Roman persuasion. This commenter shall remain nameless unless they should choose to identify him/herself in the combox.
We got around to discussing the Marian dogmas. For the benefit of the reader, I'll post here all the relevant text. I will omit nothing relevant, so whenever a response lacks, well, a response to a point previously brought up, it's because no argument was given. My statements will be in green, and the commenter's in burgundy.
Rhology: It makes me shake my head, really. What, precisely, is so disgusting about the marital act to you?
You make me shake my head.
---
Ah, so the angel's message to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife"... is gone?
I'll confess - that's a new approach on me. You can have it.
---
Where is the "in other words" part? Where is it indicated in the text that the angel meant "do not fear to take her into your house" rather than "do not fear to take Mary as your wife"?
And is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere? That's something I'd be interested in reading about. If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
---
-paralambano
I was referring to the "as your wife" part of the verse, not the "take".
-No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists?
Is this a concession that the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine?
-why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive?
Um, because she was a virgin, not yet married?
-given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
1) This must be more of this invisible Magisterium Bible interpretation again. Where does He entrust her to John's care? He says "behold your mother; behold your son". Not "behold your mother, forget the one who actually bore you, OK? Behold your son, 'cause those other guys are a bunch of louts".
2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras,"
And you know it's infallible, how? Is the proclamation that declared it infallible itself infallible? How do you know? Where was it said, infallibly, that Councils are infallible when ratified by the Pope? Do you know that infallibly?
-Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. Liturgy
I've been down that road before. None of those are infallible. I wouldn't want to be led astray by individual, private interpretation, you know.
---
-"As your wife" is a function of "take
"Take" can be used in a variety of forms. "As your wife" is the modifier.
So what you're saying is that Joseph did NOT take her as his wife. He disobeyed the angel.
-'And from that day he took her into his own home.'
And John represents the church here, how?
And you're sure that the brothers of the Lord were believers at this time, how?
And the command to John transmits to you today, how?
-We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them.
That's not what I asked.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up the horses.
Sounds like you're citing private, individual interpretation of Acts 15 and Titus 2.
Where is the council at Jerusalem from Acts 15 defined infallibly as infallible in an infallible proclamation of the Roman church? How do you know it's infallible?
Ditto for the Titus 2. I'm going to need you to cite all that stuff whenever you want to quote Scr, OK?
-In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
It would behoove your position, then, to make sense and not retreat into infinite regress at the slightest provocation. Solve that first before you lecture me. After all, it's what the Church has bound upon you - you might as well bear the burden with intellectual honesty. Or convert.
---
Joseph took her "as his wife," as in, "as if she was his wife." I've already said this. He didn't disobey the angel, he obeyed perfectly. He did so in order to protect the Lord in the womb and Mary from what would have been correctly perceived as a violation of the Law.
---
Where does the text say "as if she was his wife"?
Or is that, once again, a private fallible interpretation from you?
It ended there, with the commenter declining to respond. Of course, it's open to continuation anytime. Hopefully this conversation has been of benefit. It was to me.
We got around to discussing the Marian dogmas. For the benefit of the reader, I'll post here all the relevant text. I will omit nothing relevant, so whenever a response lacks, well, a response to a point previously brought up, it's because no argument was given. My statements will be in green, and the commenter's in burgundy.
Rhology: It makes me shake my head, really. What, precisely, is so disgusting about the marital act to you?
Commenter: There isn't anything disgusting about the marital act or about the words "penis" or "vagina." That's what you people are asserting, but there's nothing improper about either of them. It shows a depraved mindset to consider them offensive. They're part of God's wonderful creation, and there is every propriety in people who are legitimately married using them for the procreative act in keeping with 1 Cor. 7 and Hebrews 13. Neither is there anything inappropriate with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:34, "And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit." This is just exactly what the Church teaches: Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, remained betrothed to him, but did not complete the marriage so she could remain holy in body and spirit, and so she could be totally devoted to Jesus' care and upbringing, so as to be "free from [worldly anxieties," but instead "anxious about the things of the Lord."
---
Ah, so the angel's message to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife"... is gone?
I'll confess - that's a new approach on me. You can have it.
---
In other words, do not fear to take her into your house, don't put her away quietly as you thought to do, because she'll be stoned under Mosaic law if you do...
I'll keep it, too. It's the true one.
---Where is the "in other words" part? Where is it indicated in the text that the angel meant "do not fear to take her into your house" rather than "do not fear to take Mary as your wife"?
And is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere? That's something I'd be interested in reading about. If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
---
No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists? Be that as it may, I would encourage you to investigate the full semantic range of paralambano in Matthew 1:20. There is no necessity to render it as meaning that Joseph has to literally "take" Mary in the consummatory sense. In fact, the metaphysical definition Strong's gives ("1. to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be, 2. not to reject, not to withhold obedience") makes perfect sense given the totality of circumstances.
Consider also Luke 1:26-38. If Mary (whom we both acknowledge was "betrothed" to Joseph) understands the natural order of conception (and she clearly does), why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive? She would, if your paradigm were correct, have understood this saying from the angel perfectly well: she would have marital relations with Joseph, who was to become her husband. But she knew this was not going to happen, which is why she asked the question. There isn't any reasonable alternative answer.
Furthermore, given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
I would refer you also to Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras," c. 362, which was accepted and propounded by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, I believe. (It may have been Chalcedon, I'm working from memory.) Ecumenical Councils render the appelation "Ever Virgin" to Mary as well, and in the course of their dogmatic teaching. These councils were properly ratified by Popes, and there is thus no question as to their infallibility. By necessity, then, these and others are infallible interpretations in a negative sense concerning the sense of Matthew 1:20 you mentioned. It is simply not necessary for them to explicitly state the interpretation; just as if I make a statement "It has not rained all week long, there hasn't been a drop,"
I don't need to explicitly state, "And let me make myself clear: when the weatherman said 'don't forget your umbrella,' he was lying." The weatherman wasn't lying. And I don't need to explicitly "refute" him when the meaning doesn't require me to have taken his words as directly contradictory.
If you desire more about Magisterial pronouncements concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, I'm sure you can borrow a copy of Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. See pp 203-207 in Ott and all the references listed in the Symbolic Index ection VIII, i in Denzinger. Lateran Council, Popes, Saints (Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, et al.), Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. all maintain it.
If you desire more about Magisterial pronouncements concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, I'm sure you can borrow a copy of Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. See pp 203-207 in Ott and all the references listed in the Symbolic Index ection VIII, i in Denzinger. Lateran Council, Popes, Saints (Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, et al.), Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. all maintain it.
Another source equally authoritative for us is the Liturgy, of course. I don't expect you to understand or accept that, but if and when you begin to explore liturgics and the history of the Mass and so forth, you'll get a better grasp on why I mention it.
----paralambano
I was referring to the "as your wife" part of the verse, not the "take".
-No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists?
Is this a concession that the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine?
-why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive?
Um, because she was a virgin, not yet married?
-given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
1) This must be more of this invisible Magisterium Bible interpretation again. Where does He entrust her to John's care? He says "behold your mother; behold your son". Not "behold your mother, forget the one who actually bore you, OK? Behold your son, 'cause those other guys are a bunch of louts".
2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras,"
And you know it's infallible, how? Is the proclamation that declared it infallible itself infallible? How do you know? Where was it said, infallibly, that Councils are infallible when ratified by the Pope? Do you know that infallibly?
-Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. Liturgy
I've been down that road before. None of those are infallible. I wouldn't want to be led astray by individual, private interpretation, you know.
---
"As your wife" is a function of "take; hence, you need to articulate how it is that we must render "paralambano" as "take in the consummatory fashion." You cannot do so.
"Um, etc."
But, as I pointed out, your position is that she knew she wasn't going to remain a virgin. The angel didn't say to her "You've already conceived." He said "you will conceive." She, according to your position, would have clearly understood that to mean in the eventual course of her marriage to Joseph. Think about it.
"Where does He entrust her to John's care?"
'And from that day he took her into his own home.' Read a little, man.
"2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?"
The Apostles do. They were, um, Apostles. We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them. You're grasping at straws, Alan.
"And you know it's infallible, how?"
Because it was propounded by the E.C., as I said. And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc. I'll email you when my series is complete and give you the URL. You would do well to read a lot of my prefatory posts concerning epistemology and certainty, as well. In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
----"As your wife" is a function of "take
"Take" can be used in a variety of forms. "As your wife" is the modifier.
So what you're saying is that Joseph did NOT take her as his wife. He disobeyed the angel.
-'And from that day he took her into his own home.'
And John represents the church here, how?
And you're sure that the brothers of the Lord were believers at this time, how?
And the command to John transmits to you today, how?
-We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them.
That's not what I asked.
Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc.Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up the horses.
Sounds like you're citing private, individual interpretation of Acts 15 and Titus 2.
Where is the council at Jerusalem from Acts 15 defined infallibly as infallible in an infallible proclamation of the Roman church? How do you know it's infallible?
Ditto for the Titus 2. I'm going to need you to cite all that stuff whenever you want to quote Scr, OK?
-In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
It would behoove your position, then, to make sense and not retreat into infinite regress at the slightest provocation. Solve that first before you lecture me. After all, it's what the Church has bound upon you - you might as well bear the burden with intellectual honesty. Or convert.
---
Joseph took her "as his wife," as in, "as if she was his wife." I've already said this. He didn't disobey the angel, he obeyed perfectly. He did so in order to protect the Lord in the womb and Mary from what would have been correctly perceived as a violation of the Law.
---
Where does the text say "as if she was his wife"?
Or is that, once again, a private fallible interpretation from you?
It ended there, with the commenter declining to respond. Of course, it's open to continuation anytime. Hopefully this conversation has been of benefit. It was to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
