Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sysprg@zeus.unl.edu (Craig B. Walter) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Why do people think Mary remained a Virgin? Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 89 09:22:02 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 61 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Well, I don't know if the majority of people who post to this group are catholic or what, but I would like to ask a question? What is the catholic religions scriptural basis for believing that Mary remained a virgin her whole life? And I believe that the catholics also believe she was perfect, am I right or wrong? But back to the first question, I can and will be willing to show several verses that prove that Mary had more children than just Christ, so I am curious as to the supposed proof of her perpetual virginity. I am not looking for an argument or anything, just a friendly discussion. Thanks... cbw [Your question presupposes that Catholics have to have Scriptural grounds for everything. As you may know, they have a different balance between Scripture and tradition than Protestants. They believe that authentic traditions about Jesus in addition to those in Scripture were passed on within the Church. I'll leave the actual justification of the doctrine to those who believe in it. There's no question that the tradition on this is rather early and that it was accepted very widely by the "Fathers". If the NT is held to contradict it, the belief must have started soon after the NT was written, and spread rapidly. I'll summarize a couple of things from the last time we had this discussion, just so we can get all the data out on the table, rather than over the course of a zillion postings. (The following is based on a discussion in Vincent Taylor's commentary on Mark.) The Scripture passages referring to Jesus' brothers are disputed. It is claimed that the term translated brothers can be used for other types of relationship as well. Jerome argued that it can be used for a variety of relationships, from blood relations to kinship, common nationality, and friendship. There are two major theories about the brothers of Jesus. The earlier one was that they were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. This was held by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary, 'Ambrosiaster', Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria, and is implied in the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium of James. Some of the Fathers in this list are about 200. The Protoevangelium seems to be from about 150. (Note that the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium are not considered canonical. They are cited because they show evidence of Marian doctrines already circulating in the Church at that time. The Protoevangelium already has many of the themes of later Marian doctrine.) I don't know of any earlier evidence. The other major theory is that the brothers were cousins of Jesus, the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas and sister of Mary. This seems to have been first advanced by Jerome (about 383). That the brothers are actually brothers was argued by Helvidius, Tertullian, Bonosus, and Jovinianus. (Tertullian lived around 200. I don't know about the other names. They are rather minor compared to the constellation of Fathers associated with the first view. Note that Tertullian himself is of dubious orthodoxy.) In addition to mention of Jesus' brothers, we have Luke 2:7 and Mat 1:25, which use expressions that you wouldn't expect if Jesus were an only child. However the wording of these passages is certainly not explicit. One thing that was clear from the previous discussion is that you may think a passage is obvious, but that doesn't mean others are necessarily going to. My own feeling, for what it's worth, is that the Scriptural evidence is conclusively against perpetual virginity, but that if you want to accept the doctrine, you're better off with the theory that the brothers are from a previous marriage of Joseph than that they are cousins. --clh]