The Trinity, Brothers of Jesus, Was Mary A Constant Virgin?

Hi again quickbeamoffangorn, Good to hear from you again. I’m putting this on column–much easier to edit, allows for more exposition.

OK, I went to your reference link, and I’m still not groking this. I only have Webster’s and Random House dictionaries and not OED. Spiration does not show up in Catholic dictionary.

Your link: “ He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle.”

“Yes, of course Jesus had brothers and sisters, Mary was not a perpetual virgin.”

“Sorry this is simply a misreading of the scriptural data. The former point isn’t proven at all. You are free to hold the latter if you chose, but frankly if one places themselves in St. Joseph’s shoes; I don’t think you’d be keen on bedding down with a women who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Of course if you dismiss the bible as historically inaccurate then that goes out the window, but then there’s no point in having a discussion either if that’s the case.”

Well on the above point I am going to take Occam’s Razor firmly in hand, place to my throat, and say:

Mathew 1:25: And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her *firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.

Mathew 12:46-47: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mathew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 3:31-32: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Luke 2:7: And she brought forth her *FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 8:20-21 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, my mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

John: 7:3: His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest..

*To be called the firstborn may imply there are more, and the different scripture selections seem to back this up by referencing “brethren” in a separate manner than “brothers of the congregation.” Just a billion or so Protestant people’s belief. On the point of bedding down with a wife who’d had relations (in a spiritual way) with God-there may be some element of sexuality there you have not considered. 🙂

I consider the Bible historically accurate on most points. People, places, and a number of events, have been shown to be true by archaeological and other sciences. However these same sciences are showing that a lot of Genesis events are not. Of course there is controversy about the sciences intruding in religion, but I feel it is a legitimate area of research.

I’m not even close to being an arian–Sikh’s are weird. That whole mustache and beard thing is creepy. 🙂

LOL, I don’t know if your having a bit of fun at my expense on this one or not. Arianism don’t have to do with Sikh’s. It was the heresy that rocked Christianity in the 4th century.

I think there may be too many arians around. When you mentioned this term, I immediately thought of the Indian sub-continent. This is from Wikipedia:

The Arain are an agricultural caste settled mainly in the Punjab (Pakistan), with significant numbers also in the Sindh (Pakistan). They are chiefly associated with farming (market gardening), traditionally being small landowners or zamindars

Being slightly dyslexic, I transposed the i and a. Well at least we got a laugh from it. 🙂

I think I do hold the Sola Scriptura position on most things I read in the Bible, as do a lot of people of the Protestant faiths. Although I am not of those faiths, I do follow most of their logic in regards to deciphering Scripture

“The Trinity was fought over for years before it was canonized; it was a human thing. Were it a God-driven message, there would have been no opposition.”

Now here you appear to move into what appears to be a Monothelites position (one will) another heresy only that was condemned in the late 7th century.

Not believing in a Trinity does put me in the category of Monotheism. Me, a Heretic? I’ll fight you all the way to the stake. 🙂

Wasn’t Jesus ministry itself opposed by religious humans? Does it follow that His ministry is therefore human driven? I don’t think that point stands.

The ministry of Jesus was opposed by the Jewish clergy, the Sadducees, etc.. It seems, from Scripture, that the common folk followed him

” Remember, God was supposed to be directing this thing. People were tortured for their non-belief in the Trinity. Does that seem like a Godly enterprise?”

Agreed. This was political then anything else. The Trinitarians were tortured, beaten, exiled and killed by the Arian emperors and when Trinitarian emperors came to power they in turn applied the same method to the Arian believers. Their rational was to create political stablility as a unifying principle for the empire.
Most of history used that principle. The church isn’t excused in going along with the states methods, but that does not invalidate it either IMO.

First, I don’t think there were any non-Trinitarian emperors. Emperors previous to Constantine did not believe in the Christian God. Constantine was the first emperor to convert to Christianity; all the others were pagan. He was the first emperor to legalize Christianity. When Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity he was not a hard believer of one way or another, regarding the Trinity. At the end of the Nicene council he told the members to decide on Trinitarianism or monotheism, they choose the former, and there followed a number of years where the monotheists (arians) were tortured and killed for their beliefs–by The Mother Church, with Rome’s help of course. The 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned at Nicene’s end contained the Trinity. Again I will ask; does that seem like a Godly enterprise?

“Regarding my using Bible literalism for exposition-Hey, priests and ministers have been doing it for centuries. ”

Selectively yes. I’m not saying it hasn’t been used, I simply saying it’s flawed.

Flawed or not it is used extensively by Protestants, and I feel no shame in using the same tactic.

“I think if this were indeed real (Trinity, Dualism, etc.) that there would not be the dichotomy we see in Scripture.”

Again this goes back to the reformation idea of sola scriptura. Your free to chose that position, just be aware it’s a 16th century creation.

Christianity has down through time constantly adjusted positions. I disagree on the Trinity and I don’t feel apprehension about it. But then I am not leading a billion people.

“There should not be a special class of priests necessary to explain God’s words or meanings.”

Easily understandable given the times we live in. As the secular world increases and the influence of Christianity continues to decline, the quality of all the Christians will increase, because true sacrifices will be required of them- especially in first world countries.

Interesting poll came out last week that said 45% of religious people have, in the last year, “changed” their religion. I wonder what is going on?

Been a pleasure “talking” to you “quick.”

Add to Technorati Favorites


About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

4 Responses to The Trinity, Brothers of Jesus, Was Mary A Constant Virgin?

  1. Dear Word of me,

    Well you certainly have given this some thought & brought out all the usual suspects on the topic.

    One of the difficulities of reading scripture is one thinks that somehow God simply and directly gave the completed work to us. The bible is a library of books spaning thousands of years with numerous human authors with God as the primary writer. However, God did not provide us with a list of what books and authors were approved in the completed bible. This decision was made by men in the church who drew from their knowledge they received from pevious generations back to the apostles and Christ.

    Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin.

    One has to go back to the Greek understanding of the word brother which is “adelphos”-Strong’s # G80

    1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother

    2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman

    3) any fellow or man

    4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

    5) an associate in employment or office

    6) brethren in Christ

    a) his brothers by blood

    b) all men

    c) apostles

    d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

    The same goes for the term “til” which is Greek heĹŤs
    Strong’s # G2193.

    2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died or would you disagree and think that Michal will have children when she’s dead?

    The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on. There isn’t any implication that there was a second or third child by the use of that term.

    If Jesus did have brothers, why would he have entrusted Mary to the beloved disciple, John, at the foot of the cross (John 19:26-27)? He would have had surviving siblings who would have taken care of her. It would be surprising for Jesus to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, especially because he criticized the Pharisees for neglecting the support of their own parents in Matthew 15:3-6.

    Luther & Calvin the founders of the Reformation and creators of Sola Scriptura held to Mary as ever-virgin, why would that be?

    “Not believing in a Trinity does put me in the category of Monotheism. Me, a Heretic? I’ll fight you all the way to the stake. :-)”

    Indeed it’s always good to have a sense of humor. Ok, I’m sorry I am using terms your not familiar with that’s my fault. We all profess monotheism (Jews, Muslims, Christians and Arians such as your self) believe in one God.

    What I said in the previous statement was that your statement was “Monothelites” that means one will. Christians profess that Christ has two wills (one human and one Divine). So when Jesus speaks about following His Fathers will it is His humanity speaking not His divinity. You seem to meger the two into one. Which if true would explain your position in rejecting the Trinity. We simply disagree, but it’s not like your position is new and hasn’t been rejected for more then 1,000 years explicitly.

    “I don’t think there were any non-Trinitarian emperors”

    Constantius II, Valens, and Julian the apostate all after Constantine the Great.

    “At the end of the Nicene council he told the members to decide on Trinitarianism or monotheism, they choose the former, and there followed a number of years where the monotheists (arians) were tortured and killed for their beliefs–by The Mother Church, with Rome’s help of course.”

    Sorry to you have any primary sources to back up what your saying here? Yes the council of Nicene did pass the Trinitarian formula. Constantine the Great was baptize by an Arian. The church needed the emperor to “foot the bill” as it were to get the bishops together and provide safe passage to and from on roman roads.
    Look up Constantius II(Constantine the Great’s son) he was an Arian and he forced Arian creeds on all Christians. There are several ancient documents on the conflict of Emperor Constantius with Christians. Emperor Theodosius I ,came after him by about 20 years and enforced Christians creeds on the Arians. In both cases it was the political arm of the empire that forced most of the population to adhere to their creeds. However the one that endured through all that was the Christians. The Arians weren’t willing to die for their creed as much as Christians were for theirs.

    “The 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned at Nicene’s end contained the Trinity. Again I will ask; does that seem like a Godly enterprise”

    The Bible (as in a fixed list of books considered by Christians as the word of God – and no others) wasn’t even developed until the dawn of the 4th century. As far as Constantine’s commissioning of “bibles” it was rather loosely described. And in fact the individual he chose was the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (who was a semi-arian-not a Christian). In his history you can find that he says books that are disputed (in his day) which the church later included in the bible. Ecclesiastical History Book 3 chapter 25 verses 1-7.

    “Interesting poll came out last week that said 45% of religious people have, in the last year, “changed” their religion. I wonder what is going on?”

    Yes and they have left the Catholic church in droves. Given the neglect of it’s bishops, the number of child abusive priests, and the disgruntled ex-priests and nuns spreading mis & dis-information – I’m not suprised. In fact any other organization would have been financially & spiritually bankrupt 20 years ago. The rest of the turn over is mostly protestant and they leave because they like you hold to sola scriptura, but they held it when they join one group and hold it when they reject one group to join another. It’s just my opinion and that of my church but it’s seems to be demonstrated at face value that this method does not work for uncovering the truth.

    The Catholic church survives not because catholics are better then anyone else, nor do they have better leaders most of the time, and many world leaders have forecasted it’s demise:Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napoleon,Stalin, Hitler & John Lennon all thought the Catholic church was dieing or dead. They were wrong.

    Time will tell, but I’d say the track record is impressive and this inspite of it’s leaders rather then because of them. No other institution has endured anywhere near as long, which isn’t a testament to the church as it is to God.

    Oh, by the way I’m not a supporter of the rapture “craze’ as it’s professed either.

    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. I think your honest with the truth as you seek it. I wish you well in your journey.

  2. thewordofme says:

    Bravo and Touche Sir… Well, now you’ve done it…I had all of what I wrote to you memorized from years ago, and now I’ll have to do the research again 🙂
    Not complaining, It’ll just take awhile. Thanks a lot for taking the time to talk to me.

  3. thewordofme says:

    Quickbeamoffangorn, Sorry, a quick note…
    The word “tebel” in Hebrew–H8398 used 37 times to talk of “the whole earth” in creation.

    The words “kol” and “erets” H3605 and H776 respectively–in relation to the Noah’s flood Meaning,local area,land,earth,country,ground.

    Haven’t had time to research it yet–maybe you have some knowledge of it

  4. IF you mean whether it’s required to hold to the concept that the whole global earth was flooded during the time of Noah, then no I don’t think that it’s clear cut one way or the other.

    However the flood was certainly a real historic event, if on no other basis then from Christ’s words in Matthew 24:37-39 & 1 Peter 3:20.

    I don’t look to the bible to understand science. God left the rules of the universe to be discovered by man. Universal truths that man can not discover through their material senses is what is primary in the bible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: