Mary’s Maturity

[mike]

Why wouldn’t her other children have been with her at the Cross in probably the worse time in her life? By her side, and for their brother? Where were they? Even still Jesus entrusted her to Apostle John.

Where were the rest of the disciples? It was a small gathering. When Jesus wanted to make sure his mother was cared for, the options were very limited.

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

I love that song.
I don’t know, but if MY mother was in that situation I would let nothing stop me from being with her during her suffering.
Then there’s the historical writing (somewhere) that John took her to Ephesus where she lived out the rest of her life.

None of us were there, it is a matter of who you believe. I can’t imagine why the ancient churched in both East & West lied. Surely they would not want to stand before God about that-
I believe there are others who believed she remained a virgin besides RC & EO.

That would just mean there are others besides the RC and the EO who believe what is false on this question. I mean, it's Christmas season, so why not quote:

And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Or as other versions put it:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

Good News Translation
But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

Not only do the New Testament writings not in ANY way support the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they describe her relationship with Joseph in ways such as the above quotes, and they speak of Jesus' siblings repeatedly and explicitly. The RCs and EOs have absolutely nothing to stand on from scripture in their claim of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is something they are foisting on the text.

See below.

Explicit mentions of “brothers” (and sometimes “sisters”) of Jesus:

Matthew 12:46–47 – While Jesus is speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers stand outside… “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…”

Matthew 13:55–56 – The people of Nazareth say: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” (names four brothers and implies multiple sisters)

Mark 3:31–32 – His mother and his brothers came… “Your mother and your brothers are outside…”

Mark 6:3 – Almost identical to Matthew 13: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”

Luke 8:19–20 – His mother and his brothers came to him…

John 2:12 – After the wedding at Cana: “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples…”

John 7:3–10 – His brothers urge him to go to the feast in Judea (they did not believe in him at this point).

Acts 1:14 – After the ascension, the apostles are praying “together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 – Paul defends his rights: “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

Galatians 1:19 – Paul says that when he went to Jerusalem he saw none of the apostles “except James the Lord’s brother.”

Additional references to specific named brothers:

James is repeatedly called “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19, and implied in Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Jude 1 identifies the author as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,” strongly implying he is also a brother of Jesus).

Summary of frequency:

Direct references to Jesus having “brothers” (ἀδελφοί): at least 10 distinct passages (Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul’s letters).
Two passages explicitly mention “sisters” (Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3).

Four brothers are named (James, Joseph/Joses, Simon, Judas/Jude) in the Synoptic Gospels.

So the New Testament refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters roughly a dozen times across multiple independent sources (Synoptics, John, Acts, and Paul), treating it as common knowledge among early Christians.

And yes, I'm familiar with how the Catholic church redefines brother and sister to mean cousin in order to maintain one of many of their doctrines that is not sourced in scripture.

The Catholic Church, and some other traditions, interpret the term "brothers" to mean cousins or step-siblings, as a way to maintain the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

[barnhart]

Mike, the Orthodox and RC ideas around Mary are not based in the authority of scripture, rather in the authority of church tradition. If you believe in church authority more than scripture, there is little value in appeals to scripture.

[ohio jones]

Mike, the Orthodox and RC ideas around Mary are not based in the authority of scripture, rather in the authority of church tradition. If you believe in church authority more than scripture, there is little value in appeals to scripture.

As my Catholic grandmother said after being shown the verses naming Jesus' brothers: "Well, maybe it does say that. But it's not what the Church teaches, so it won't change my view of Mary's perpetual virginity."

[R7ehr]

With this sort of thing, and who knows what else at the time, I can see why some people threw up their hands and chose sola scriptura.

[mike]

Mike, the Orthodox and RC ideas around Mary are not based in the authority of scripture, rather in the authority of church tradition. If you believe in church authority more than scripture, there is little value in appeals to scripture.

Yeah I know. It's probably not worth the effort.

[Valerie]

Mike, the Orthodox and RC ideas around Mary are not based in the authority of scripture, rather in the authority of church tradition. If you believe in church authority more than scripture, there is little value in appeals to scripture.

Yeah I know. It's probably not worth the effort.

I never heard them say “more” than Scripture. They are the very church that gave us our scriptures. It is interesting. They could’ve tampered with them to support the things that tradition teaches us. But second Thessalonians 2:15 gives weight to Paul teaching orally and written it’s not that they’re tradition changes a scripture as they have a different understanding of Some of the scripture then we Protestants. Do the Mennonites agree with all of Mennonites Simmons interpretations? I’ve read on this forum some things they disagree with him on yet are Mennonites?

[Valerie]

2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Here we have “Scripture” telling us to hold fast to that which was taught orally” and wasn’t written down.
So to “the Church” it was perfectly Scriptural to hold oral teachings not written to be held.

The problem is “trust”. It’s taken a lot for me to trust that which was orally taught or interpretation that is different. I think though if the “whole world” that the Apostles took the Gospel & started churches agreed everywhere on certain teachings, it could be my “original” teachings may be incorrect in some areas. None of the churches that came out of the Reformation are in agreement about interpretation anyway so I’m sure to them we don’t appear to have it all right either.

[mike]

Mike, the Orthodox and RC ideas around Mary are not based in the authority of scripture, rather in the authority of church tradition. If you believe in church authority more than scripture, there is little value in appeals to scripture.

Yeah I know. It's probably not worth the effort.

I never heard them say “more” than Scripture. They are the very church that gave us our scriptures. It is interesting. They could’ve tampered with them to support the things that tradition teaches us. But second Thessalonians 2:15 gives weight to Paul teaching orally and written it’s not that they’re tradition changes a scripture as they have a different understanding of Some of the scripture then we Protestants. Do the Mennonites agree with all of Mennonites Simmons interpretations? I’ve read on this forum some things they disagree with him on yet are Mennonites?

It is one thing to have extra-biblical tradition or doctrine, which has its own set of issues; but it's another thing for doctrine or tradition to outright contradict scripture. If a doctrine necessitates the wresting of scripture in the way that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary does, may I suggest that it is more than reasonable to give priority to the words of the apostles over the word of the Catholic church.

This has nothing to do with whether Mennonites agree with all of Menno Simon's ideas. Of course we do not. He is not the foundation of the church, and his words are not the writings we live by; they never were.

[mike]

2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Here we have “Scripture” telling us to hold fast to that which was taught orally” and wasn’t written down.
So to “the Church” it was perfectly Scriptural to hold oral teachings not written to be held.

The problem is “trust”. It’s taken a lot for me to trust that which was orally taught or interpretation that is different. I think though if the “whole world” that the Apostles took the Gospel & started churches agreed everywhere on certain teachings, it could be my “original” teachings may be incorrect in some areas. None of the churches that came out of the Reformation are in agreement about interpretation anyway so I’m sure to them we don’t appear to have it all right either.

I really don't understand why you aren't EO or Roman Catholic.

[ohio jones]

They are the very church that gave us our scriptures.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that gave us the scriptures.