|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 9, 2015 20:50:13 GMT
Did Mary Remain a Virgin? Protestants, feel free to explain why you do not believe she remained a virgin.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 9, 2015 22:10:40 GMT
1) No mention of her being a perpetual virgin mentioned in Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin. 2) The passage in Luke 1:34 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time. 3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching. 4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 5) There are only 2 possible meanings for “for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 9, 2015 22:27:08 GMT
Jay
1) The Catholic claim is not that it explicitely says she remained a virgin. This is explicit in the Church Fathers. The Catholic claim is that nowhere in Scripture does it contradict the Catholic claim. Also, we don't believe everything the Apostles taught was written in Scripture.
2) I will concede this.
3) The idea that God would be born of a virgin is pretty extraordinary, so we aren't talking about ordinary circumstances. Thus, your appeal to what is ordinary is irrelevant.
4) You say "When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters". Please name a Greek scholar who claims this. The word can me a close relative or cousin in this case as well, as has been pointed out by St. Jerome in his work On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
5) Adelphos can mean "fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family (Matt. 1:2; Luke 3:1, 19; 6:14); members of the same tribe, countrymen, and so forth (Acts 3:22; 7:23; Rom. 9:3). One of the same nature, a fellow man was regarded as a brother (Matt. 5:22–24, 47)." (Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament.) Also, the term is used of "cousin" in the Old Testament Septuagint to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, who were cousins. Thus, there is Biblical precedent for this term meaing "cousin".
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 9, 2015 22:51:08 GMT
1- How did the fathers arrive at the conclusion that Mary remained a perpetual virgin given the reasons (and there are others) I have given? Where did they refute any of these points? You can claim that " we don't believe everything the Apostles taught was written in Scripture" but that is pure speculation because all that we have from the apostles is what is found in the NT alone. It is true that Jesus said and did other things not recorded or that Paul mention his traditions but we have no record of these things.
3-It was a miracle that was predicted that Christ would be born of a virgin. There is no statement in Scripture that says the mother of Messiah was to remain a perpetual virgin after the birth of Christ. If anything it would make sense on multiple levels for Christ to have blood brothers and sisters so as to experience His humanity in all its varied forms such as a family.
4- If i'm not mistaken it was Norman Geisler. It was also confirmed in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which is a major Greek lexicon used by scholars etc. As Kittel says -"A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.”
5- Even if its true that "the term is used of "cousin" in the Old Testament Septuagint to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, who were cousins" that does not mean that its used this way in Matthew 13:55-56,Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19.
Let's apply your reasoning to Mark 3:31-35 and put the words "cousins-relatives" instead of brothers. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your “cousins-relatives” are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My “cousins-relatives”?”
34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My “cousins-relatives”! 35 “For whoever does the will of God, he is My “cousins-relatives” and “cousins-relatives” and mother.”
If what you say is true this would weaken the impact of what Jesus was teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 9, 2015 23:05:15 GMT
Jay,
1. Read St. Jerome's work On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to see how they arrived at this in light of the Scriptures you raised. He addresses everything you can imagine.
3. I can argue for Mary's perpetual virginity in Scripture (it is implicit in Scripture) with the same method the Apostles used to apply Isaiah to the virgin birth.
4. Please provide the citation. Also, Kittel could be wrong because this may perhaps be the one exception. He may not want to say this is an exception because of a previous bias against the doctrine.
5. As far as the Mark passage, here is what St. Jerome, in his book already mentioned, said in response:
"Now here we have the explanation of what I am endeavouring to show, how it is that the sons of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mother, who though not formerly believers afterwards did believe, can be called brethren of the Lord. Possibly the case might be that one of the brethren believed immediately while the others did not believe until long after, and that one Mary was the mother of James and Joses, namely, “Mary of Clopas,” who is the same as the wife of Alphæus, the other, the mother of James the Less. In any case, if she (the latter) had been the Lord's mother S. John would have allowed her the title, as everywhere else, and would not by calling her the mother of other sons have given a wrong impression. But at this stage I do not wish to argue for or against the supposition that Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of James and Joses were different women, provided it is clearly understood that Mary the mother of James and Joses was not the same person as the Lord's mother. How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren— by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 15:12 “If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.” And in the same book, Deuteronomy 17:15 “You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother.” And again, Deuteronomy 22:1 “You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again.” And the Apostle Paul says, Romans 9:3-4 “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites.” Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis Genesis 13:8, 11 we read, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren.” And again, “So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother.” Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, Genesis 12:4 “And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son.” But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. Genesis 14:14 “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen.” And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, “And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot.” Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. Genesis 29:11 “And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son.” Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, Genesis 29:15 “Laban said unto Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be.” And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, Genesis 31:36-37 “What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two.” Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca. Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” And in another psalm the Saviour says, “I will declare your name unto my brethren.” And elsewhere, John 20:17 “Go unto my brethren and say to them.” I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. Isaiah 66:5 “Tell these who hate you,” says the prophet, “you are our brethren.” And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 5:11 “If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat.” I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, “Behold, your brethren seek you,” for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 “She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's,” that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise, what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of his own father? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and threatens, Leviticus 18:9 “He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his mother, and beholds her nakedness, has commited abomination, he shall be utterly destroyed. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, he shall bear his sin."
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 9, 2015 23:19:53 GMT
1-5 Since you are arguing for Jerome you need to present his argument succinctly. If you know it well, then you should be able to bring up counter arguments of his against what I have written. Did he not believe Joseph had other children before he married Mary? If so, that argument has been refuted because there is no evidence for it and it causes other problems that I mentioned previously.
3- Give me your implicit argument that is just as strong as "the Apostles used to apply Isaiah to the virgin birth". Any passage you bring up I would like to see how your officially interpreted that passage also.
4- Kittel is 10-12 volume set. He was a scholar of the first rank. These scholars don't write Lexicons etc because they have a bias against the RCC. If Kittel has a bias against the RCC then its up to you to show it. BTW, other Greek lexicons also support what Kittel has written.
Raymond Brown, Roman Catholic scholar says on the perpetual virginity of Mary: "Leaving aside post-Reformation quarrels, we must seek to reconstruct Matthew’s intention, first from the immediate context and then from the whole Gospel. How does “not know her until” fit into the immediate context? In English when something is negated until a particular time, occurrence after that time is usually assumed. However, in discussing the Greek heõs hou after a negative…K. Beyer, Semitishce Syntax im Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1962), I, 132(1), points out that in Greek and Semitic such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the “until” was reached…The immediate context favors a lack of future implication here, for Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the Isaian prophecy will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. As for the marital situation after the birth of the child, in itself this verse gives us no information whatsoever. In my judgment the question of Mary’s remaining a virgin for the rest of her life belongs to post-biblical theology […] Besides the question of fact, one has to ask whether Matthew was in a position to know the facts. Did he think that the brothers were children of Mary born after Jesus; and if so, was this simply an assumption on his part?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 10, 2015 1:11:57 GMT
Jay, On the Adelphos argument, consider this point: "In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Your former pastor concludes wrongly that these are at least some of Mary's other children. The New Testament proves otherwise. In John 19:25 we read, "Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala." Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: "Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they're called adelphoi); they were Jesus' cousins--sons of their mother's sister." www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothersSo, Scripture itself shows that, in the New Testament, the word is used of cousins. On Kittel, I'm well aware of the set and recognize it is a scholarly publication. The point is, even scholars can be biased (a fact that I am shocked you would deny). Where exactly does he say "A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament"? Just curious though, at the end of the day, I'll side with St. Jerome, St. Augustine and the Church over Kittel on this one. I don't see where in the Raymond Brown quote where he denied the perpetual virginity of Mary (and I'm not exactly sure why you quoted him anyway). Also, I'm not a big fan of liberal Catholic theologians, so, quoting Raymond Brown to me won't matter very much.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 10, 2015 2:19:46 GMT
Who is my "former pastor"?
I don't see how Matthew 27:56 --"Mary the mother of James and Joseph" refutes the idea that we see a reference to the blood brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55-56 where it clear mentions the parents of His siblings. How does that follow? Where in Matthew does it mention "two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus"? Where does it mention they are cousins? The word for cousins is anepsios or suggenes for relative. A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.”
Never said that scholars could not be biased. Applies to yours also. The problem with siding with St. Jerome, St. Augustine is that they are not infallible and we have advanced far beyond their understanding of the NT words. Your church on the other hand refuses to exegete these passages to support its doctrines. It knows that if it were to do so it won't hold up under scrutiny as were finding on this doctrine and its implications.
Your bias against Raymond Brown is showing. Instead of studying his conclusions you dismiss him because he is supposedly a liberal RC theologian.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 17:39:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 23:34:42 GMT
I have read quite a bit by RC apologists on the perpetual virginity and they all fail at exegeting the Scripture correctly. One of the things that is astounding is that so much of it is based on speculations.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 19:11:29 GMT
Jay,
You say "I have read quite a bit by RC apologists on the perpetual virginity and they all fail at exegeting the Scripture correctly."
That may be your opinion, but without a Magisterium, who is to say whose opinion is correct?
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 22:21:23 GMT
The one who has correctly exegeted the passage is the correct one. Just becasue a religious authority claims something to be true does not make it so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:25:25 GMT
Jay,
You say
Sure, but how do you know who has correctly exegeted the Scripture, since exegetes often dispute as to what is the proper exegesis of a particular passage, not to mention, which textual variant is the proper one to exegete.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 22:37:48 GMT
Correct exegesis depends on correctly understanding the context of the passage, the meaning of the words used in the passage and seeing if other passages of Scripture address the same issue. These are sound principles to use to determine the meaning of a passage. They can also be used to test the doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:46:37 GMT
Jay,
You say
I'm not asking you what correct exegesis is, but who determines who has correctly exegeted a passage. Exegetes with differing positions will both claim they have understood the context, the meaning of the words used in the passage and the other passages of Scripture that address the same issue. Thus, you have not answered my question.
|
|