The cousin argument
In order for anyone to believe that Mary remained a virgin, they first have to believe the Bible doesn’t really say what it appears to say. The apostles called Jesus’ relatives brothers and sisters, but they really meant cousins? Then why didn’t they say cousins? Luke, a Greek speaking gentile, referred to Elizabeth as Mary’s cousin (syggenēs); why did he not call her Mary’s sister (adelphē)? The cousin exegesis makes Luke out to be inconsistent.
The Mary at the cross argument
They also propose the idea that Jesus had no brothers because on the cross He gave His mother to John. Someone has told you that it would have been customary for Jesus to place His mother’s care in the hands of His brother, and since He did not do that He must not have had a brother. Sounds logical, but there is one major problem; had Jesus given His mother to one of His brothers, His actions would have contradicted His teachings.
Jesus said, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” I think you would agree that there is enough evidence from the Gospels to conclude that Mary believed in Jesus, but we know with certainty that His brothers did not (John 7:5). So if Jesus were to give His mother to His brothers He would have contradicted His own teaching.
What about the obvious conclusion just from reading the Bible?
I am sure most would agree that if a person who never heard the Gospel read them for the first time, they would believe that Mary had other children based simply on the text. It would take someone to come in and tell them that what they read isn’t as it appears. That means the burden of proof lies with those who dispute the obvious conclusion drawn from the text.
The evidence that the doctrine of Mary remaining in her virginity perpetually is not orthodox
“For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn near, and that He was dwelling within those that believe in Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Against Heresies; 3:4)
“And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end.” (Origen; Commentary on Matthew; 17)
“Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, He knew what was without; being tried by the untrue announcement of the presence of persons who were not present.” (Tertullian; On The Flesh of Christ; 7)
How and when did the doctrine take hold?
The belief that Mary remained a virgin seems to have developed out of the Christology debates of the mid to late fourth century. A very large schism occurred over the notion of whether or not Mary was the mother of God, i.e. Jesus’ divinity and humanity, or merely the mother of His’ humanity. The idea that Mary remained in her virginity blossomed out of that controversy. The only group I have come across from the ante-Nicene period that believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Mary-worshiping Callyridians. And in my personal opinion, they are the catalyst for the Marian doctrines that developed in the fourth and fifth centuries.
So the evidence really is stacked against the belief that Mary remained a virgin. Historically it’s a no-brainer. But no amount of evidence will ever persuade people who just choose to believe the doctrine. But this evidence does matter to people who are willing to let go of ideology and seek truth.
October 24, 2009 at 10:39 am |
Clarification:
I should clarify that the Marian doctrines developed out of the early influences in the fourth century that caused the controversy, ultimately leading to a schism at the council of Ephesus in 431. By the time the council met, the doctrine of Mary ever virgin had taken hold in the Catholic Church. Some were declaring Mary’s perpetual virginity as early as the mid fourth century.
November 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
“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.” –Martin Luther
“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”–Martin Luther
“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”–John Calvin
“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”–Ulrich Zwingli
“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”–John Wesley
November 2, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
Your point?
November 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
It’s only relatively recently that there was any question about Mary’s perpetual virginity.
November 2, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
Tertullian (Early third century)
Jovinianus (Late third century)
Victorinus, bishop of Petavium (Early fourth century)
Helvidius (late fourth century)
Are these relatively recent?
November 2, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Brian, universal truth will have doubters. There were doubts about every Christian doctrine. That doesn’t make them untrue. The truth was universal among Christians until recently. This by no means suggests that I agree that those you mentioned held that Mary wasn’t, because to do so would be heresy.
November 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm |
David, the thing of it is though, is that you are yet again changing your position on something that you have said earlier. Before you said this:
“It’s only relatively recently that there was any question about Mary’s perpetual virginity.”
Then when Brian gives a few (even though there are many more throughout history) that doubted that Mary might have been a perpetual virgin you say this:
“There were doubts about every Christine doctrine.”
So which is it? Is it a new thing that people question the doctrine of Mary having perpetual virginity, or has there always been some kind of opposition to that belief? You can’t have it both ways you know.
As always, God Bless you David (I like your name :D )
November 3, 2009 at 12:07 am |
You are grasping at straws David (the Catholic). Your point was that there were no disputes over Mary’s perpetual virginity until recently. I showed you a few well-known examples that are easy to verify so you could see that your assertion was wrong, but instead of verifying my claim you tell me you disagree? Why would you do that David? Anybody can read my comment and verify that what I said is true. Do you think I am just blowing smoke?
Of course it was universal among Christians, the church held all the power in the Middle Ages. Look at what the reformers went through when they dared to oppose the mighty Catholic Church. Do you think the average illiterate commoner had any chance whatsoever of discerning the truth from church leaders, whose ideology dictated every aspect of their lives? People lived in fear of the church David that is why there was little protest for so long. Just look at what happened to Galileo.
You know David; this topic would probably not be an issue (speaking for myself) if the belief that Mary remained a virgin were just that. But instead it exploded into a plethora of Marian doctrines that damage her character rather than honor her memory. It’s important for people to challenge doctrines like these because of what they lead to.
November 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
My point was never that there were no disputes about the status of our Mother. The Church wasn’t given to us all grown up and mature. There were disputes about everything, from the divinity of Christ, baptism-everything. But that there were disputes does not speak at all to what’s true. And the Marian dogmas were always held by the early Church, but were specifically defined later, same as the doctrine of the Trinity, and everything else. Only when there were specific questions about something were they specifically defined.
Marian dogmas do nothing to diminish her, Brian, that’s your own take on it.
November 3, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
Let me remind you of what you said:
“It’s only relatively recently that there was any question about Mary’s perpetual virginity.” (David the Catholic: 11/2/2009)
Okay, so you are abandoning your first argument that opposition to the doctrine is a recent invention, and sticking with a “there-were-always-disputes” stance. Good, now maybe we will get somewhere.
We have clearly shown that the early church did not hold to the Marian doctrines. I have asked you to provide something, anything, from any of Tertullian’s contemporaries showing disagreement with his assumptions that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Mary. You’ve provided nothing so I assume you have nothing. So let’s take a brief look at the development of this doctrine.
In the middle of the second century we have clear evidence from Irenaeus that Mary had other children after Jesus.
About 75 years later, Origen tells us that the Protoevangelium of James is responsible for some of the faithful believing that Mary remained a virgin all her life.
Around the same time, in the west, we find Tertullian clearly indicating that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not common among the faithful.
Fast forward about another 75 years and we still find clear teachings that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ (this indicates that most of the faithful still believed Mary had other children).
Fast forward another 50 years and we find Basil fully believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but admitting that believing she had other children after Jesus does not run counter to the faith (this indicates that many of the faithful still believed Mary had other children).
Move forward about another 50 years and we find Jerome adamantly defending Mary’s perpetual virginity against a weakening opposition (this indicates that few of the faithful still believed Mary had other children).
By the time the church reached the sixth century, opposition to the doctrine was pretty much squelched. Once all opposition to the doctrine had been put to rest, the Catholic Church officially defined the dogma in the middle of the seventh century and attached to it a curse on anyone who refused to believe it.
That is what’s called, “developing doctrine.” It’s a doctrine of men and both the Bible and history prove that.
November 3, 2009 at 7:06 pm |
And I thought I was dealing with someone intelligent…I think it goes without saying that human beings disagree about anything, even those first Christians. But the dogmas and doctrines were always there, Brian. Considering the lack of any punctuation or any spaces between words, it’s understandable that you or anyone else would question it. Aquinas created the questions the questioners hadn’t even thought of in his Summa and other works. But that’s where oral tradition comes in. Of course you want to flush it to make your point, but that just doesn’t fly. Your conclusions are…your conclusions Brian, but they are not the conclusions of the only Church that was created by Christ and lives to this day. Doctrine does not grow, it gets better understood.
November 3, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
David, I really don’t see anything unintelligent in what Brian has said. Many Roman Catholics believe like you had stated earlier that doctrines like onces associated with Mary were never questioned until post-Reformation times. Yet Brian clearly shows that the early church didn’t believe in it. These were people who would have been the ones to go to in order to prove these doctrines, but the early church fathers reject them. Claiming that oral tradition is proof of the doctrines holds nothing over me. What is oral tradition? Whatever the Roman Catholic Church of the present day believes it is. I mean it. Not even Thomas Aquinas believed that Mary was conceived without sin, and he’s one of the most popular Roman Catholic saints in all of history. So, you have a choice David. You can continue to believe in these doctrines that you know have no ground, historically, logically, or even traditionally. Or you can keep believing in them knowing that these doctrines have no ground anywhere. In essence, they are false doctrines, and that is too bad. Whatever your decision is David, I wish you well.
God Bless
November 3, 2009 at 8:25 pm |
Oh, I forgot one thing too, sorry. David, can you show me where your quotes from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley came from? I’m just curious about them for my own personal study.
Thank you and God Bless
November 4, 2009 at 12:02 am |
David (the Catholic),
My main objective is to take what I have learned through research and study, and share it with others. I haven’t been able to garner any historical challenge from you concerning your claims on tradition. You keep telling me it has always been there, but provide no evidence. I have provided ample evidence that your traditions were not taught by the apostles and consequently unknown by the early church. I even provided a brief synopsis of the development of the doctrine at hand, still nothing of substance from you just unsupported assertions.
The only thing I can conclude from this is that you just believe what you want to believe. You don’t need evidence because you are fully on board. I’m fine with that David, but if you are going to challenge criticism of your doctrines don’t you think you aught to learn more about where they came from? Just a thought. Thanks anyway for your contribution to this topic.
November 4, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
My last post…I’m not saying Brian is unintelligent, but it does go without saying that humans will disagree about anything, and that anyone who thinks there wasn’t doesn’t have a clue about humanity. But just because there is disagreement doesn’t mean that something is not true. The doctrines about the virgin Mary were held by the universal Catholic Church from the birth of the Church at Pentecost.
Brian, you and I conclude the same thing about each other. Your refutation by wiping out whole references doesn’t fly. Your parsing whole articles in the Catholic encyclopedia into just a few words and your parsing of other people’s words (parsing = taking someone’s words out of context, something you say I did as well) doesn’t provide evidence. I know where my doctrines come from Brian, you just don’t accept the sources. So be it.
November 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
David (the Catholic),
You have been desperate to find early church sources that support your belief, and I am sure it is frustrating to come to the conclusion that there aren’t any. So why don’t you do as I and many other former Catholics have done and approach your research on sacred tradition from an unbiased point of view. Obviously you are arguing from an ideological point of view rather than an informed point of view; doing that will get you nowhere here.
I have provided more than enough references that cast serious doubt on what you believe, and I afforded you ample opportunity to refute my sources. If you thought there was something in the context of any of my sources to conclude differently than I did, I would have certainly expected you to produce arguments from them. I am not going to post entire articles and long quotes to make my point, that is why I include references.
If you want to see a good example of what it means to mislead by distorting context, read my new post on Catholic Answers tonight. It will be posted sometime between 9 and 11 PM Eastern.
November 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
Brian, that some people doubt what’s true doesn’t mean that what’s true isn’t true. I am a former non-Catholic and know that no Protestant sect has the whole truth. They all have part of the whole truth. The whole truth is Jesus, and Jesus formed one Church and made Peter his prime minister. This Church Jesus formed, which he promised would last until he returned, is the Catholic Church.
You can doubt all you want. That’s what God gave us-free will. Eve doubted God, and chose a different path. So be it, you don’t need my permission to go down that path. I’m not saying that some pretty important people didn’t have some doubts. It’s hard not to doubt some things when you look at them through human eyes. Jesus didn’t look divine when he walked the earth. Some even questioned his divinity. But look through the eyes of faith, and you will be shown clearly what is true.
I won’t be back, Brian, and I won’t waste my time reading your drivel.
November 4, 2009 at 7:58 pm |
David, I think what Brian wants is some sort of evidence about your beliefs. You know what I mean? He has provided you with what some early church fathers have said about various doctrines of Mary, and now I would like to see you provide documents from the early church fathers on that would explain why you believe in the Marian doctrines. That is what will help you gain ground here. If you say things like,
“The whole truth is Jesus, and Jesus formed one Church and made Peter his prime minister. This Church Jesus formed, which he promised would last until he returned, is the Catholic Church.”
then you will get nowhere here because that has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. You basically have made a decleration, which is fine, but we need to see evidence from the apostles or evidence from other first or second century Christians. Once you can provide that, then the discussion will move forward in an interesting direction.
Also David, I wasn’t trying to be mean when I asked you if you could provide me the sources of your quotes from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley. I don’t know where to find those quotes that you have of them, could you please show me those sources?
God Bless you David
November 12, 2009 at 2:19 am |
Maybe David isn’t coming back. I was hoping that he was because I wanted to know where those quotes came from the reformers. Do you know where they are from Brian?
November 12, 2009 at 11:26 am |
I can’t say for sure, but from my experience he seems to just Google things and then copy and past what he finds. I did the same thing and found the exact same quotes at this website: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
Hope this helps.
November 12, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Thank you Brian. I’ll try to look at those quotes in depth soon.
Also, you said that you once were a Roman Catholic yourself Brian. Can I ask you if you were more devout or were you nominal?
November 12, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
David,
I was born into a very devout Catholic family. I went to Catholic grade school up to third grade. My older brothers and sister attended through eighth grade. I served as an alter boy a few times and had the basic education of a Catholic child. I went to mass regularly until I was about sixteen. I tried getting back into it when I was seventeen but found that I lost interest.
To answer your question directly, I guess I was rather nominal. I really didn’t know anything different and I didn’t get all that involved with my religion. I became a Christian in 1997 when my wife and I were reading the Bible together. I don’t say that to demean Catholics it’s just that I never made a real connection to Jesus as a Catholic, so when I did later that is when I knew I was a Christian. A couple years later I began to study the early church writings because almost every person I am related to is Catholic and I wanted to understand the history that I so long assumed was Catholic. I needed to reconcile my assumptions with what I understood from the Bible in an unbiased way. That is why I am adamant about not adopting anyone’s theology.
I love Catholics because they are my family, my friends and my past. I challenge Catholics because they are my family, my friends and my past. I want them to discover the things I have discovered, and the only way I know how to do that is to confront their doctrines and pit them against history and the word of God.
I included an “about” page on my updated website, one-fold.com that speaks a little bit about this.
I hope I answered your question. Thanks for asking it!