Q: Doesnt the existence of Jesus brothers, mentioned in Matthew 12:46, show that Mary was not always a virgin, contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine?
A: I think it does. Lots of Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers disagree, insisting that Mary was perpetually a virgin -- and by this they mean (at least, if they are well-informed about the details of their catechisms) that Mary not only lived her entire life celibate, but that the birth of Jesus did not cause any bodily change to her previous state of virginity. To me, Christians ought to be free to believe such things -- just as one should not be forbidden to believe that Marys favorite color was lavender. (Scripture, after all, does not say otherwise.) But to promote such ideas, to the point of promulgating them as intrinsic doctrines of the church, is to render Scripture superfluous as a necessary basis of doctrine. Once the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- which Scripture tends to oppose rather than support, when it is approached plainly -- is proclaimed as a doctrine rather than an opinion, what role remains for Scripture as a requisite contributor to doctrine? Not much of one. And that is why, after the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been promulgated, other unScriptural, and even anti-Scriptural, doctrines have followed: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the description of Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix and Advocate, all of which were utterly foreign to the Christianity of the first century.
A few relevant, or at least interesting, links:
www.christiancourier.com/...anuary.htm -- Wayne Jackson sums up some objections to the exaltation of Mary and the doctrine of her Perpetual Virginity.
www.catholic.com/library/...Virgin.asp --
a Roman Catholic defense of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This material, which openly relies on the Protevangelium of James for support, has received an Imprimatur. (Number of patristic writers quoted: 13. Number of Bible verses quoted: none.)
www.catholic.com/library/...e_Lord.asp -- a Roman Catholic explanation of why the New Testament references to Jesus brethren doesnt mean sons of Mary. The false assumptions and the shallowness of the claims that are made in that essay are not difficult to spot. In the interest of brevity, and so as not to spoil the experience for others, I will not analyze it here.
See also my comments on Matthew 1:25.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: I think it does. Lots of Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers disagree, insisting that Mary was perpetually a virgin -- and by this they mean (at least, if they are well-informed about the details of their catechisms) that Mary not only lived her entire life celibate, but that the birth of Jesus did not cause any bodily change to her previous state of virginity. To me, Christians ought to be free to believe such things -- just as one should not be forbidden to believe that Marys favorite color was lavender. (Scripture, after all, does not say otherwise.) But to promote such ideas, to the point of promulgating them as intrinsic doctrines of the church, is to render Scripture superfluous as a necessary basis of doctrine. Once the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- which Scripture tends to oppose rather than support, when it is approached plainly -- is proclaimed as a doctrine rather than an opinion, what role remains for Scripture as a requisite contributor to doctrine? Not much of one. And that is why, after the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been promulgated, other unScriptural, and even anti-Scriptural, doctrines have followed: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the description of Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix and Advocate, all of which were utterly foreign to the Christianity of the first century.
A few relevant, or at least interesting, links:
www.christiancourier.com/...anuary.htm -- Wayne Jackson sums up some objections to the exaltation of Mary and the doctrine of her Perpetual Virginity.
www.catholic.com/library/...Virgin.asp --
a Roman Catholic defense of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This material, which openly relies on the Protevangelium of James for support, has received an Imprimatur. (Number of patristic writers quoted: 13. Number of Bible verses quoted: none.)
www.catholic.com/library/...e_Lord.asp -- a Roman Catholic explanation of why the New Testament references to Jesus brethren doesnt mean sons of Mary. The false assumptions and the shallowness of the claims that are made in that essay are not difficult to spot. In the interest of brevity, and so as not to spoil the experience for others, I will not analyze it here.
See also my comments on Matthew 1:25.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
