jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) (06/27/90)
ons regarding Mary's virginity and Jesus' siblings are very
perplexing, but before they run their course may I please add a few
words:
There can be no rational doubt that Jesus had at least two sisters
and four brothers-------
Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3 ...is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren,
James, Joses, Simon, Judas? And his sisters...(i.e. "Hey folks, we all
know the whole family"...presumably Joseph having passed on...)
Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19 ...mother and brethren...without
Jn 2:12 ...mother, brethren, and DISCIPLES (His brothers couldn't
have been all bad...being included with the disciples...but no
sibling seems to have been present at the crucifiction...they
couldn't endure to the end? Must have stressed Mary greatly not to
have had her other children with her for support.)
Acts 1:14 ...but they were back with her after the resurection (like
many of us ...teetering...)
Gal 1:19, 1Cor 15:7 ... and at least one, James, repented, probably
after having been visited by Jesus himself (as was Saul) and who
later rose to a position of leadership in Jerusalem and subsequently
was ordained an apostle (following the pattern of filling the position
left by a deceased apostle (as Mathias replaced the fallen Judas)
to keep the prescribed leadership intact.)
These siblings were not COUSINS or they would have been referred to
as such (as was John the Baptist, who was the son of Mary's COUSIN
Elizabeth. That would make John and Jesus at least 2nd cousins and
probably once or twice removed considering the great age difference
between Elizabeth and Mary and their divergent geneologies).
They were not his 'spiritual' siblings either. (Note that none/most of
them did not accept him as the Redeemer until after his resurection.)
They surely were not Joseph's children by a previous marriage either,
or else they would have been mentioned during the trip to Bethlehem
and on to Egypt. (They were clearly not left with a divorced wife nor
with his family, who did seemed not to approve of the marriage.)
Yes, there are enormous gaps in the story of the first two yea thirty
years of Jesus' life, but surely SOME mention would have been made of
any step children at some point. (There is no absolute proof here only
rational thought.)
However and most importantly, THERE IS NO REASON that Jesus shouldn't
have had siblings! Joseph would have wanted children of his own with
Mary. And Mary too would have wanted more than one child as any normal
Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish wife would have wanted. The story says that
a virgin would conceive and the issue would be the Christ/Savior/Lord.
It DOES NOT SAY that Mary would be virgin AFTER conception!
So what is the problem here??? Let me guess.... S___E___X.
As if it were somehow tainting. And just who said that marital sex was
tainting? Not the scriptures: NOWHERE in the OT is such an idea found.
Infact A&E were COMMANDED to have sex. (Unless someone has a suggestion
how to procreate without it -- to multiply and replentish.) Only
extramarital sex is condemned in the OT. Neither the Ten Commandments nor
the Law even hint that marital sex be anything but incouraged for procreation
and familial harmony. Likewise in the NT: Only Paul is begrudging of
marriage. He nevertheless approves of it and of course the natural
sexual companionship which accompanies it. (Note that Paul, when he spoke
of this, despite the quantity of his writings found in the NT, was not a
high ranking officer of the Church. And no other officer of the Church
decries marital intercourse.) Likely the reason that there is so little
commentary on the subject is that marital sex WAS NOT AN ISSUE then. The
problem arose much later........
So how did the problem arise??? Well, if not initiated by Augustine,
it clearly was magnified by him. In his youth he couldn't keep his pants
on. He sinned abundantly. In his attempts at repentance, he came to feel
that he was evil. He was evil mostly because he indulged in premarital
sex and was now addicted to it. Therefore, concluded he, all sex is evil.
He also concluded that sex in the Garden of Eden was evil -- and sex then
was the 'original sin'. Eve tempted Adam to have sex so it was really her
fault. Ah, then!! It is the temptation of men by women that is the root of
this issue. Women are therefore the evil ones and, thus, Agustine
was of the hook -- just an innocent bystander shall we say.
Of course there is no basis for any of this in the scriptures; in fact
the assertion that sex was the original sin doesn't make any sense at all.
'Original sin' comes from having EATEN the fruit of some strange tree, which
apparently changed A&E's biological structure so that aging ensued and
also gave them (and their offspring) the ability to discern 'good' from
'evil'. FURTHER, Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind
INCLUDING THE TRESPASSES OF ADAM AND EVE, thus there is no longer any
original sin in effect. That is why we will all resurrect! That is why
the dead had to wait in their graves until Jesus resurrected...and THEN
they 'rose from the dead'. That is why we call Jesus 'Lord, Reedemer,
Savior'.
From here it gets more complicated: Augustine reasoned that if Jesus was
good. It follows then that Mary was good. If sex is bad and Mary is good,
then she didn't have sex ---- EVER. Further, if Jesus was good and Mary
(Jesus' mother) was good, then Mary's MOTHER needs to have been good.
Hence Mary's mother didn't have sex EITHER. Despite the fact that Mary
had at least one sibling -- a sister (Jn 19:25). Etc. No comment was made
about Mary's greatgrandmother, etc. (There is no attempt to find any
logic here; all of this came from Augustine's attempt to find repentance
for his continuing addiction to sex, which began in his youth.
For my part, there is no need to invoke 'immaculate' conception for
anyone -- Jesus, Mary, her mother, or Ruth for that matter. 'Immaculate'
conception implies that other conceptions are not 'immaculate' -- somehow
tainted, sinful, evil. It is clear to me that the word 'immaculate' is
not only extrascriptorial it is misleading. We further note that Joseph
'knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her FIRSTborn son.' After which
they presumably lived as a normal happily married couple, except for an
uncomfortable sidetrip/honeymoon(?) to Egypt.
Procreation is the sharing of the creation mirracle with God. And when
it is shared also with a dearly beloved spouse, it seems to me to be the
most holy practice accesable to mortals. (Could this be why the Lord
considers adultery so sinful?) Certainly to suggest that the conceiving
of beautiful little babies in such a relationship is not immaculate is
insulting to both the parents and to God. I further see no reason
to believe that Jesus was not conceived in the same manner as other
people. I don't know that Joseph was very happy about it, but he wasn't
the first nor the last to marry a woman who was carrying another man's
child (albeit one fathered by God). He must have loved Mary deeply, he
guarded the little family, built a home, and cared for Mary and their
children. They together bore some six more children and spent at least
the next twelve years (ten or so if one counts from the return from Egypt
happily together (after which Joseph is curiously not mentioned). They
doubtless struggled together to be righteous and to earn there own
salvation the same way that all of us must struggle to find our salvation
with our own families -- including the passing of children, mates, and
other loved ones.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
[I fear that your comments are a bit stronger than are warranted by
the evidence. There are in fact cases where the word "brothers" is
used in the Bible figurative or with a wider context than simple
biological brothers. Thus you cannot say that there is no rational
doubt. I certainly do not find the Catholic interpretations of these
passages credible, but to say that they are irrational seems to be
carrying things too far.
The positive valuation of virginity was established in the Church well
before Augustine. Indeed Augustine was inspired in his decision to
give up marriage by the example of Antony. I have mixed feelings
about whether the special role of virginity in the Catholic tradition
indicates a negative view of sex. Catholics generally say it does
not. They point to the fact that, unlike Protestants, Catholics see
marriage as a sacrament. Sexual union is symbolic of the union
between Christ and the Church, and can form a channel for God's grace
to encounter us. One can admire the discipline of the ascetics
without deprecating the value of Christian marriage. As Charles
Williams points out throughout his history of church ("The Descent of
the Dove"), Christian tradition has always included two approaches:
the way of affirmation of images and the way of rejection of images.
Like most Protestants, I have an instinctive suspicion of the way of
rejection. But it should be possible to see both virginity and
marriage as ways of serving God.
Note by the way that Augustine did not consider sex in itself as evil.
In the City of God he describes sex as part of the idyllic state that
God intended for men. Sex was corrupted by sin, as everything else is
corrupted by sin. It is evil only because it is mixed with lust.
--clh]vancleef@garg.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) (07/05/90)
In article <Jun.26.23.48.50.1990.14564@athos.rutgers.edu> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes: >Procreation is the sharing of the creation mirracle with God. And when >it is shared also with a dearly beloved spouse, it seems to me to be the >most holy practice accesable to mortals. (Could this be why the Lord Andrew Greeley, a catholic sociologist/priest, who is famous for the "sexual" content of his novels (ie:"The Cardinal Sins"), writes in detail in some of his latest non-fiction books (ie:"How to Save the Catholic Church") about sexual relationships and how they can be considered a "type" of God's love for us. A very short summary: The sexual attraction, sometimes close to uncontrollable, that we feel towards other members of the human race, is a poor example of the attraction that God feels toward us... I would recommend his books, both fiction and non-fiction, as being food for thought. You may not agree with him, but he will make you think. Bob -- __ Bob Van Cleef - vancleef@nas.nasa.gov RNS Distributed Systems Team Leader
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (07/05/90)
There is a big difference between the importance of Mary's virginity at the conception of Jesus (which *is* important) and her proposed virginity during the rest of her life. I certainly believe, as the Creed says, that Jesus was born by a virgin, being the son of God. But as to the Catholic teaching that Mary remained a virgin forever, I find absolutely no sense in believing this. I have yet to find the Catholic who can give a sensible answer to the question "why?". There simply is no point. There is every reason to believe that Mary went on to fulfil her marriage with Josef, bearing him many children and thus being a good wife. In fact, if she had suddenly become totally frigid and uninterested in sex, she would have been regarded as a very bad wife, and Josef would have vad cause for divorce. Is there anyone who can give me an explanation of where the anti-sexual feelings, the adoration of virginity as a quality in itself, etc. came from? It's just incomprehensible to me. Ake Eldberg
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
Consecrated virginity is universally viewed as a higher state of life than the married state in the early Church. There are multiple works of the Fathers on the subject, and numerous other isolated passages touching on it. Note the "consecrated". Remaining single for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven, not because you don't like children, or whatever. Pius XII wrote an encyclical (Sacra Virginitas) on the subject, which deals with the Catholic doctrine in depth: This then is the primary purpose, this the central idea of Christian virginity; to aim only at the divine, to turn thereto the whole mind and soul; to want to please God in everything, to think of Him continually, to consecrate body and soul completely to Him. This is the way the Fathers of the Church have always interpreted the words of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles; for from the very earliest days of the Church they have considered virginity a consecration to God... There are a number of Scriptural passages involved; the encyclical goes through them. One of the most important is Matt. 19:10-12. There is also this consideration: there is no marriage in Heaven. Those who embrace consecrated virginity as a state of life merely start to live now what they will live in Heaven. That our Lady was in the state of consecrated virginity for her whole life is also the ancient teaching. I have never checked, but I find it extremely doubtful that one will find any other teaching among the Orthodox, and perhaps the Monophysites, just because of the antiquity of the doctrine. Martin Luther also held to this belief. Some orders of nuns wear wedding rings; they are spiritually spouses of Christ, desiring to do everything that He desires. Joe Buehler
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
For those who have a real interest in the Catholic scripture interpretation on this subject, I suggest the Catholic encyclopedia's article on the "Brethren of the Lord", and St. Jerome's work against Helvidius. The arguments are far too long to post. I will mention a couple things, though. Take, for example, "He knew her not UNTIL she had brought forth her FIRST-BORN son." As St. Jerome demonstrates, the UNTIL implies nothing about what comes afterwards. For example: Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world. (Matt. 28:20) St. Jerome gives a few other examples. Also, The FIRST-BORN is a technical term; it implies nothing about a second-born. Keep in mind that the doctrine did not arise from Scripture interpretation in the early Church, it was traditional. Joe Buehler
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.04.02.1990.12084@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >That our Lady was in the state of consecrated virginity for her whole >life is also the ancient teaching. I have never checked, but I find it >extremely doubtful that one will find any other teaching among the >Orthodox, and perhaps the Monophysites, just because of the antiquity of >the doctrine. Martin Luther also held to this belief. What many non-Catholics don't realize is that Mary was _conceived_ without sin. She was concieved in the normal way (through sexual intercourse) but through a special grace of God befitting her special role in the salvation of mankind, no trace of sin was propogated into her body or soul from the moment of conception. Like Adam and Eve, she was created in the state of supernatural grace. But she accomplished what Adam and Eve were unable to accomplish -- she never sinned. Yes, she had free will, and yes, she was sorely tempted (as we all are). But of all _creatures_ in the universe, she is unique in having perfectly assented to God's will in all things. To me it makes "aesthetic" sense that the Most Holy Virgin Mary -- a _creature_ without equal in all the universe, greater than all the angels and saints together (but certain incomparable to God Himself) -- would remain physically celibate for her entire earthly life. With all due respect to Saint Joseph, her Most Chaste Spouse, I just can't imagine the only sinless creature in the universe making it with one of us mere, fallen, sinful mortals. Besides, the Church teaches (infallibly) that she always was and is now Perpetually Virgin. And that's good enough for me! chris -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.59.13.1990.14769@athos.rutgers.edu> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >What many non-Catholics don't realize is that Mary was _conceived_ >without sin. And what follows is the Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and I at least would have been happier if it had been presented as such, rather than as if it were some established truth. For the record, no non-Roman sect believes this, and it is refuted by Holy Scripture, as Paul says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." As for myself, I believe that salvation comes only through the redemptive sacrifice of Our Lord, and that this redemption is both necessary and universal. The doctrine that any man or woman whatsoever was sinless, and hence not in need of salvation through Christ, is one that I cannot reconcile with the Christian faith as I see it. [I believe you have read into the doctrine more than (or other than) it intends to say. Mary's sinlessness was "because of the merits of Christ our Lord, the Savior of mankind, which were forseen" (quoted from "Ineffabilis Deus", the pronouncement that defined the doctrine.) Mary, like everyone else, is saved only by Christ. I'll let one of our Catholic correspondents give more details. --clh]
madderomj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jonathon Madderom) (07/20/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.59.13.1990.14769@athos.rutgers.edu>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > > What many non-Catholics don't realize is that Mary was _conceived_ > without sin. She was concieved in the normal way (through sexual > intercourse) but through a special grace of God befitting her special > role in the salvation of mankind, no trace of sin was propogated into > her body or soul from the moment of conception. Like Adam and Eve, she > was created in the state of supernatural grace. But she accomplished > what Adam and Eve were unable to accomplish -- she never sinned. Yes, > she had free will, and yes, she was sorely tempted (as we all are). But > of all _creatures_ in the universe, she is unique in having perfectly > assented to God's will in all things. > > chris > Where did you get this information. I have never heard that Mary lived a perfect life from any source. I have never read this in the Bible. None of my Catholic freinds have ever mentioned this in any conversation about her. They say that she was a good woman but not a perfect woman. Is this just a myth or do some Catholics REALLY believe this. Jesus is the only person to ever walk a perfect life. If she was perfect then she would have understood why Jesus was talking in the temple when he was 12, but she didn't and told him to come home. How come Paul and the other apostles never talk about Mary being perfect. Or really talk about her at all. Paul was as much of a Godly person as Mary so why do Catholics put so much emphasis on Mary and not on Paul? If you would, will you post the source of where this information about Mary is found. If you could give me a verse from the Bible I would even more appreciate it. --Jon Jonathon Madderom AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!madderomj internet: gtephx!madderomj@asuvax.eas.asu.edu [Presumably if you have Catholic friends you know by now that Catholics do not use the Bible as a standard in the same way Protestants do. So being able to quote a Bible verse is not necessarily a requirement (and I'd rather not get into that issue -- this is a basic difference that our readers have heard about enough that I'd like not to go over it again). As to whether Catholics really believe it, the Immaculate Conception, which is what we are talking about, is one of the only two explicitly infallible decisions made by the Pope. So it's pretty hardcore Catholic doctrine. To what extent there may be dissent within the Catholic Church on this subject, our Catholic correspondents can comment better than I. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/24/90)
Yes, indeed, Catholic doctrine is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of the original sin. She was still redeemed, though. She was just redeemed in a more perfect way, by preventing the effects of the original sin from touching her, instead of fixing things up once the effects were there. Further, she is also held to have been sinless. She never committed any sins at all. There a few basic prerogatives of hers that Marian theology is based on. Two of the basic ones are that she was immaculately conceived, and was the Mother of God (Theotokos). The Assumption was an inevitable consequence of the Immaculate Conception. Graveyards only exist because of the original sin, and since she was immaculately conceived, her body was not subject to corruption in the grave. Her dignities are the source of the great esteem that Catholics have for her. Because of her personal sinlessness, and her dignity as Mother of God, she is a greater creature than all the rest that the Most High God made. Because of the graces given her, she loves God more than all the other angels and men put together. The passages in St. Paul that say "all have sinned" deal with the universality of the original sin, not personal sin. Obviously, since the babies of his time were not guilty of any personal sin, since they had not the use of reason yet. So the only sense in which they could be said to have sinned is through Adam, via the original sin. Joe Buehler
jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) (08/06/90)
In article <Jul.24.04.42.59.1990.17409@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > The passages in St. Paul that say "all have sinned" deal with the > universality of the original sin, not personal sin. Obviously, since > the babies of his time were not guilty of any personal sin, since they > had not the use of reason yet. So the only sense in which they could be > said to have sinned is through Adam, via the original sin. Joe, where do you get this?! I do not see how you can say that "all have sinned" does not apply to personal sin. What about 1 Jn 1:10, "If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." We might as well throw out 95% of our Bibles then. -- Jeff
cms@dragon.uucp (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.44.18.1990.17729@athos.rutgers.edu>, jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) writes: > In article <Jul.24.04.42.59.1990.17409@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > > The passages in St. Paul that say "all have sinned" deal with the > > universality of the original sin, not personal sin. Obviously, since > > the babies of his time were not guilty of any personal sin, since they > > had not the use of reason yet. So the only sense in which they could be > > said to have sinned is through Adam, via the original sin. > > Joe, where do you get this?! I do not see how you can say that "all have > sinned" does not apply to personal sin. What about 1 Jn 1:10, "If we say we > have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." We might as > well throw out 95% of our Bibles then. At great risk and with a bit of trepidation :-), I respond that Vatican II asserts that Mary was conceived without original sin; hence, it is possible that Mary could have sinned, while remaining the Immaculate Conception. However, since Mary was "full of grace," or "highly favored," and then responded "be it unto me according to your word," thus hearing the word of God and keeping it (making her blessed), it seems reasonable, in this sense, to assert that she was sinless after this point as well by virtue of her conception of Jesus Christ. Since the Lord was with her, she raised Jesus without sinning, presumably. She followed Jesus as one of his disciples (at Cana, for example), and stood before him under his Cross, with the beloved disciple, when most of the disciples had fled and feared to draw near. > Jeff -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia