Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mungo

Member
Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)


John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)


The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.
 
Well, actually I agree with everything you've said.
I've read enough conflicting information that this is not a hill I'm willing to die for.

What I firmly believe is this:
Catholics have made too much of Mary.
One incorrect doctrine has led to another and here we are.

Protestants do not give to Mary enough honor, respect and love.
She is, after all, the mother of our Lord.

If I have to choose between the two, I like the Catholic Mary more because
I think they more properly represent how she was seen in the early church.

I think Protestants (of which I'm one) should stop belittling her and making her a pawn
for debate -
Unless it's a subject on her ,my church doesn't do that .

I know an elder taught why purgatory and limbo is wrong last week .that came about the fact it was brought up during an outreach to the lost
 
We have no need to assume anything, we only need to read what is written.

Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


The carpenter's son refers to Jesus. His mother refes to Mary.

Therefore His brothers and His sisters refer contextually to Mary and Joseph.



JLB
No that is not true contextually or otherwise. You are just assuming that.
I have shown from scripture that at least some of those mentioned are not the sons or daughter of Mary the mother of Jesus.

You are ignoring the scriptural and cultural points that I have raised.
 
Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56

There is the capenter's son.

There is the carpenter.

There is His mother.

There is His brothers.

There is His sisters.


Why would anyone with a pure motive for the truth, try to twist the plain contextual structure of this verse to mean, His sisters and His brothers are not the natural offspring of the capenter Joseph and Mary, the only ones mentioned in the verse as being the parents of His brothers and sisters.



JLB

I'm not twisting the plain meaning of scripture.
I have shown from scripture that at least some of those mentioned are not the sons or daughter of Mary the mother of Jesus.

You are ignoring the scriptural and cultural points that I have raised.
 
A further point regarding these "brothers" of Jesus

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.

In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.

Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.

To get a full picture we need scripture, but also cultural and historical evidence.
 
I'm not twisting the plain meaning of scripture.
I have shown from scripture that at least some of those mentioned are not the sons or daughter of Mary the mother of Jesus.

You are ignoring the scriptural and cultural points that I have raised.

Your so called "cultural" aspects take a back seat to the undeniable crystal clear plain and clear content and context the scriptures themselves display.


Carpenter’s son refers to Joseph, Mary’s husband.

Carpenter’s son tells us that Mary refers to Jesus’s mother.


Not some “other” Mary.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


JLB
 
Your so called "cultural" aspects take a back seat to the undeniable crystal clear plain and clear content and context the scriptures themselves display.


Carpenter’s son refers to Joseph, Mary’s husband.

Carpenter’s son tells us that Mary refers to Jesus’s mother.


Not some “other” Mary.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


JLB
That there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” (& sisters) to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.


There is positive indication in scripture that at least some of these brothers were not Mary's children.

Mark says that at the foot of the cross was “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome” This was obviously not Mary the mother of Jesus, so there is another Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

Matthew similarly says of the women at the foot of the cross “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 26:56)

Luke says that at the tomb were “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James” (Lk 24:10)

So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.
Therefore it is likely that the James, Joseph and Salome described as brothers/sister of Jesus were the sons/daughter of a different Mary.

John writes “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

A further point regarding these "brothers" of Jesus

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.


So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.


In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.


Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.
To get a full picture we need scripture, but also cultural and historical evidence.
 
Read and simply believe what the scriptures so plainly teach us.


Carpenter’s son refers to Joseph, Mary’s husband.

Carpenter’s son tells us that Mary refers to Jesus’s mother.


Not some “other” Mary.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56



again



Who does mother refer to in the context of this passage?

It refers to Mary His mother.


Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56


Good sound exegesis requires we remain with the contextual flow of mother, meaning natural birth mother of Jesus, Mary into the rest of verse where we see brothers and sisters.

We can only conclude if mother refers to natural birth mother which is Mary, that brothers and sisters refer to Mary’s natural offspring.

To lift the foundational meaning out of it’s context and try to twist the natural meaning of brothers and sisters to mean distant relatives is a gross distortion of the plain and clear meaning of the context and text.


Then when we add the following verse, it strengthens the position.


Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her tillshe had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24-25





JLB
The above is exactly what I did for years and years.
Until I started to want to know the answer and started reading a lot of different articles on the above.
(not books). It started to sound complicated and like the CC might be right.
I must say that the ECFs, that I DO depend on at times, have conflicting feelings about this.
Either belief could be supported by their writings.
They say the right resolution is always the easiest...
The above makes sense...
 
Is this not his Mother Mary and his brothers James and Joseph.

Standing near the Cross was Mary the Mother of James and Joseph.

Near the cross was Jesus Mother, Mary.
 
Last edited:
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mother Mary
Salome ( Marys sister)
Mary wife of Clopas
Mary Magdaline.

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.


Mary mother of James and Joseph.
Salome. ( Marys sister the mother of zebadees sons).
Mary Mangdaline.


Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.

Mary Mother of James and Joseph
Salome
Mary Magdaline.


When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body

Mary mother of James and Joseph
Salome
Mary Magdaline

His mother, and his aunty, and his good friend Mary Magdaline. Family and Magdaline who loved as was close with Jesus annoint him.

Those 3 seem to always be acknowledged. Not his own Mother? You don't think his own Mother was there and acknowledged and at the tomb anointing her own Son?

Is this not the carpenter's Son, and his Mother Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph.

Just leads me to believe. I'm not saying 100%.
 
Last edited:
So there was another Mary whose children were named James, Joses (Joseph) and Salome.

Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 13:55-56
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top