Jesus did have brothers and sisters

Manach

leonil7 wrote: »

i would not think Mark (the writer of the Gospel) would not be precise by describing cousins as cousin instead of brothers or sisters, much like mary being described as elizabeth's cousin.

take it as it is. no harm done on Jesus (his humanity and ministry).

as for the biblical Mary, being Jewish, she would have indeed considered himself blessed with so many sons and daughters.

as for the RCC Mary, this is disastrous.

Given, at least according to the wiki article, many early Protestant founders also held the nearly the same position as Catholicism: that is hardly the case.

leonil7

True but you really wont believe something simply because most people did believe it previously ?

The simplicity of the statement is what it is . You can say a fruit is an orange when you see it with your eyes as an apple.

Mar 6:3 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?"

Manach

Given the vast amount of Biblical scholarship and that that the above quoted text was originally in another language, I'd defer to the scholarly opinions of those who have studied the entire contextual text, language, and historical mileau and not merely only selected data points.

martinedwards

Manach wrote: »

Given the vast amount of Biblical scholarship and that that the above quoted text was originally in another language, I'd defer to the scholarly opinions of those who have studied the entire contextual text, language, and historical mileau and not merely only selected data points.

and protestant scholars opinions.......

what about them?

SoulandForm

martinedwards wrote: »

and protestant scholars opinions.......

what about them?

According to early tradition Jesus did sort of have brothers in that they were the children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. There are passages in the Old Testament that do suggest that St Mary was ever-virgin. Modern Roman Catholics though believe that Joseph was also ever-virgin which I find much more difficult to accept. Also the early Reformers thought that St Mary was ever-Virgin and the idea that she wasnt seems pretty recent.

Manach

martinedwards wrote: »

and protestant scholars opinions.......

what about them?

As per the article I quoted, there were a set of Protestant scholars that held a similar view.

K.Flyer

SoulandForm wrote: »

According to early tradition Jesus did sort of have brothers in that they were the children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.

I never heard of this before, what is the source of this theory.
(genuinely interested)

FiachDubh

I think Catholicism is a blend of religion and tradition. Sure, we practice some rituals that don't have a leg to stand as far as a theologian is concerned and yes, we Hail Mary in our sleep and go mad for a few extra sacraments but sure where is the harm? The religion is 2,000 years old- you're bound to pick up a few embellishments through the millenniums. You sound like a Protestant conquistador on a crusade to show the Catholics the sinful error of their ways.
There are oddities to the Protestant religions too, but why should they be named out? Its your religion and I feel no need to try and poke holes in it.

SoulandForm

K.Flyer wrote: »

I never heard of this before, what is the source of this theory.
(genuinely interested)

Its dealt with here- http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/st_john/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm

And here- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html

Terrlock

I don't see Mary as the mother of God as I see it she is the mother of the physical body of Jesus.

God is the trinity, she did not create the creator.


I'm am wary of any organization that refers too Mary as the Queen of Heaven, as God was angry with the Jews for worshiping false Gods which included the Queen of Heaven.

However she is the mother of Jesus in that sense and I also believe that she is venerated above all other women.

However I do think what is dangerous is people seeing her as a mediator between them and God.

We need to have a thorough study on that, while it's OK to ask people to pray for us too God, Jesus is our only mediator.


1 timothy 2:5 says

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus



When I pray, I like to pray to Jesus rather then praying to others to then pray to Jesus.


When I pray, I pray for Jesus to teach me his ways and to give me his strength to live that way that God has planned for me.
I pray that his will be done, and my desires become his desires. I pray that I turn from my sinful nature and I thank God that he sent Jesus to save me.

I am also open to correction, as there is always more to learn.

SoulandForm

Terrlock wrote: »

I don't see Mary as the mother of God as I see it she is the mother of the physical body of Jesus.

God is the trinity, she did not create the creator.

When Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants refer to St Mary as the Mother of God they do not mean that she gave birth to the Uncreated Trinity- St Mary is definitely a creature in Catholic and Orthodox theology.

However Christ IS God-St Mary was the human mother of Christ, the mother not just of His Body but also of His soul. My mother is the mother of my soul and body but not of my person which comes directly from God; should I not refer to her as my mum because of that? Christ's Person is of course the Eternally existing and Uncreated Logos.

I dont see a problem with calling St Mary the Mother of God-its historical fact.

leonil7

deception lies often in simple meanings.

of course, God does not have a Mother. but to the uninitiated the simple meaning simply says what it states - that Mary is God's mother. the catholic church even emphasize this title by using a capital M - Mother.

so why not delete the clause itself ? the apostles never describe mary as God's mother. no Jew, not even christ will say God has a mother. Jesus never even called mary 'mother'. does that even bear weight as an argument against this title ?

as for the rest of us, we would settle in what the bible reveals, that Mary was the mother of Jesus.

going overboard over titles simply implies a sinister intent.

SoulandForm wrote: »

When Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants refer to St Mary as the Mother of God they do not mean that she gave birth to the Uncreated Trinity- St Mary is definitely a creature in Catholic and Orthodox theology.

However Christ IS God-St Mary was the human mother of Christ, the mother not just of His Body but also of His soul. My mother is the mother of my soul and body but not of my person which comes directly from God; should I not refer to her as my mum because of that? Christ's Person is of course the Eternally existing and Uncreated Logos.

I dont see a problem with calling St Mary the Mother of God-its historical fact.

lmaopml

The Church from the beginning honoured Our Lady. Jesus honoured his Mother too - it's one of the Commandments, and he would have honoured her. Silly to suggest otherwise....

There is a reason why the word 'Woman' is used in Scripture, and no it's not to 'insult' his Mother, but then I guess it's difficult to stop screaming across the fence of ones ire at others and nit pick rather than actually take the time out to understand them, their views and their theology. Such a shame, because not all people are like this...

We honour her because he gave her to us as Mother, and helper of Christians everywhere. Christ is King, Our Lady is Queen, the New Eve, The New Arc, Theotokos all of these things and the Catholic Church and Catholics everywhere every day all over the world call her 'blessed' in prayer just like she foretold..

The whole Communion, in unity, and as one body of people throughout time in the Catholic Church from East to West honours Mary as Mother of God. Everything Our Lady is, is due to who Jesus Christ is - he is the Head, all prayers from all intercessors - the faithful and faithful departed are presented to Him, through Him, including Our Lady's prayers - she is a vital part of the Body, her soul magnifies the Lord.

The Reformers Calvin, Zwingly and Luther honoured Mary as Mother of God and held her in the highest esteem. Some Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists still do in keeping with their origins. In fact, some Protestants still believe Mary is ever virgin too.

Obviously the children of the reformation over generations have interpreted Scripture and keep dividing, and dividing and dividing over their own theological differences, never ending division.

In the meantime, Catholics will keep honouring Mary. Of course some will use her as a means to make balls to fire at us, blinded by a lack of understanding and a pride that kindles only irritation and ill will.......hey ho!

As an aside - the Church doesn't teach that Joseph was a virgin, but I'm sure somebody somewhere might think it, write it, say it and then believe it - it doesn't make it so!

This thread seems to be falling into the Protestant / Catholic divide....

Dear Blessed Mother, and the entire Communion of saints pray for us, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Come Holy Spirit and fill the hearts of thy faithful, and kindle within them the fire of thy love.

leonil7

i suppose if mary did have sons and daughters, would she be 'honored' the way roman catholics see her today ?

obviously not. so there you have the relation between the thread question and the discussion somewhat falling to another round of mary version.

unfortunately we do not blindly follow what people have practiced before, but not supported in scripture.

jesus have some very stern words about tradition, and people do make the same mistakes like the pharisees over and over again.

SoulandForm

The whole title of St Mary being the Mother of God comes from a Christological dispute- a dispute over who exactly Jesus is. The fact is that God the Logos became a human and therefore has a mother/Mother. Jesus is Motherless in Eternity but has a Father in Eternity however on earth he was fatherless but had a Mother.

leonil7 wrote: »

deception lies often in simple meanings.

of course, God does not have a Mother. but to the uninitiated the simple meaning simply says what it states - that Mary is God's mother. the catholic church even emphasize this title by using a capital M - Mother.

so why not delete the clause itself ? the apostles never describe mary as God's mother. no Jew, not even christ will say God has a mother. Jesus never even called mary 'mother'. does that even bear weight as an argument against this title ?

as for the rest of us, we would settle in what the bible reveals, that Mary was the mother of Jesus.

going overboard over titles simply implies a sinister intent.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

The whole title of St Mary being the Mother of God comes from a Christological dispute- a dispute over who exactly Jesus is. The fact is that God the Logos became a human and therefore has a mother/Mother. Jesus is Motherless in Eternity but has a Father in Eternity however on earth he was fatherless but had a Mother.

Our Lord does have a Father, we call him 'Abba Father', just like Christ - and because of the example, truth, and witness of Christ we can do so - amazing!!

The 'Father' is not those of the gossip found among those who are quoting bible passages, who present the gossip mongers as examples of truth in Scripture.

Those who say that Joseph and Mary were his Father and Mother... - I doubt a single one would argue that 'Joseph' fathered Our Lord in the same text they quote, but they will argue that his brothers and sisters are the same as their translation says of Holy Scripture in the literal sense. One wonders, where this division will end, and where good will begin, if we can't demonstrate what it is to have it, and have a little common sense too.

Christians no doubt, but my goodness surely it involves not being an island but a kingdom, no matter nationality or persuasion we should always seek to pray the same prayer of Christ to the Father and not only that should feel compelled by saying the Lords prayer too.

leonil7

now you are being discriminatory here.

even by adoption, you wont be shamed to say your parents are your father and mother. yet in this instance, you are explicitly saying Joseph was NOT Jesus father, but Mary was his mother ?

why ? a conflict of titles ? too bad joseph being a father conflicted with the 'other' father. and yet he was deprived of his dues as both husband to mary (rcc insisting they did not have sex nor have other children), and that he raised jesus but deprived of being seen by his community and the RCC as a father to jesus. poor guy.

SoulandForm wrote: »

The whole title of St Mary being the Mother of God comes from a Christological dispute- a dispute over who exactly Jesus is. The fact is that God the Logos became a human and therefore has a mother/Mother. Jesus is Motherless in Eternity but has a Father in Eternity however on earth he was fatherless but had a Mother.

lmaopml

leonil7 wrote: »

now you are being discriminatory here.

even by adoption, you wont be shamed to say your parents are your father and mother. yet in this instance, you are explicitly saying Joseph was NOT Jesus father, but Mary was his mother ?

What? Yes, Mary is his Mother - and he is both God and Man, and yes Joseph was his father but not his 'Father'? What exactly are you arguing?

why ? a conflict of titles ? too bad joseph being a father conflicted with the 'other' father. and yet he was deprived of his dues as both husband to mary (rcc insisting they did not have sex nor have other children), and that he raised jesus but deprived of being seen by his community and the RCC as a father to jesus. poor guy.

I have no idea what this means. All I know is that there was a Holy Family, and being Holy and separated from the normal than that's exactly what they were, set aside, God Incarnate, let me repeat that - God Incarnate - Jesus Christ after so very long left his sign, and it has had a global effect - rcc aside, I think it would be a good thing to examine what you are 'for' as opposed to what you are against, and most of all if you are for Christ be a 'doer and not merely a hearer' - You can look that up in Scripture if you like.

Perhaps, the road will cross there, and a meeting point is a port of call.

SoulandForm

leonil7 wrote: »

now you are being discriminatory here.

even by adoption, you wont be shamed to say your parents are your father and mother. yet in this instance, you are explicitly saying Joseph was NOT Jesus father, but Mary was his mother ?

why ? a conflict of titles ? too bad joseph being a father conflicted with the 'other' father. and yet he was deprived of his dues as both husband to mary (rcc insisting they did not have sex nor have other children), and that he raised jesus but deprived of being seen by his community and the RCC as a father to jesus. poor guy.

St Mary gave Him not only flesh but also a soul- everything human He had He had from her therefore she is His Mother. Joseph did not contribute anything to the make up of Jesus's being.

SoulandForm

leonil7 do you believe that Jesus Christ just had a human body but no human soul?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was a human person?

keano_afc

Bible believing Christian here.

This topic has come up before, and usually ends in a Catholic v Protestant debate. As a "neutral", so to speak, my opinion is entirely biblically based. I see no need to pray to Mary, as my God is more than capable of hearing and granting my supplications, and I cant say the same about Mary. As she is not omnipresent, she doesnt hear my prayer. So why go anywhere else than God? As for the "mediation" argument, I often ask my friends and family to play for me as I can see them and know they hear me. As I said, Mary does not fall meet that criteria.

As for the OP, the bible refers to Jesus brothers on many occasions. I see no reason to doubt that Mary and Joseph had further children.

Lapis lazuli

Brothers (and Sisters) of Jesus

There are a number of possibilities :

1. They were full brothers
2. They were half brothers
3. They were step brothers
4. They were close relations
5. They were the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary", and close relations of Jesus

1. Rules out Our Lord was conceived by the Holy Spirit
2. A relatively new belief among some Christians from the 19th century on, and rules out the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
3,4,5 Were the most widely held beliefs by the majority of Christians, east and west, throughout history, including the Protestant reformers such as Luther, Zwinglie, the Anglicans and Methodists, who also believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Sulla Felix

strobe wrote: »

Even if Joseph and Mary went on to have children, that wouldn't really make them Jesus' brothers and/or sisters, would it? Or even half-brothers or half-sisters, would it?

Is the belief that Jesus had 50% of Mary's DNA, or that she was a surrogate?

If a woman acts as a surrogate, and then goes on to have her own children with a man who isn't the biological father of the surrogate child she birthed, are those children considered related to the first child, because they gestated in the same womb, despite having no biological link?

Depends on the type of surrogacy that was used. Was a foetus implanted or just sperm that fertilized Mary's egg?

You also have the fact with fetomaternal chimerism, a woman and a foetus can pass DNA from one to another, even in the case of full foetal surrogacy. Now this DNA isn't expressed, but some portions of Jesus' body may have been made up of cells containing Mary's DNA rather than his own. Happens all the time. She likewise would likely have had some cells containing his DNA in her body.

santing

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

2. They were half brothers

2. A relatively new belief among some Christians from the 19th century on, and rules out the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

I don't think you can get rid of this theory that easily ... See e.g.
The Brethren of the Lord (Lightfoot, 1865) http://philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm

In the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed 'the brethren of the Lord.' On the one hand .... On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. ... the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy.

daithiocondun

I haven't read through the entire thread as I don't have the time (forgive me!). I am not a man of faith but I was raised in the Catholic tradition and I did study Theology to degree level.

As far as I am aware, in the RC tradition Mary was the Immaculate Conception - not Jesus - this is a common misconception. We often hear people joke about people who are pregnant when there is no obvious father refer to the pregnancy as the Immaculate Conception - this is a mis-joke, if you will. Mary was the Immaculate Conception as she was born without the taint of original sin as she was chosen to be the mother of God. Immaculate means clean/perfect/without blemish.

the RC tradition maintains that Mary, upon her death, was assumed into heaven body and soul. So the belief that she was Immaculate, Assumed into Heaven and the Mother of Christ/God makes her a very significant figure and worthy of, not worship, but at least reverence and respect. The assumption assumes she occupies a place of significance in heaven.

As for praying to her, one of the moderators is correct in saying that we don't technically pray TO her, as such. Rather we ask her (and the saints) to whisper in God's ear, if you like. I suppose it could be argued as a go-between prayer and pointless, but it's merely a RC tradition and, if nothing else, you could argue that it allows a female to be placed in a significant capacity in an otherwise Patriarchal tradition.

I admit that many Catholics do treat Mary as a kind of demi-God and some people have extreme Marian devotion in which they may sometimes over look God from time to time, but I'm certain this is simply a misinterpretation of Marian Doctrine coupled with a long tradition of fondness for the Maternal and caring qualities of Mary which is instilled in Many Catholics.

Either way, I can't imagine God haveing any problem with an element of devotion to a hugely important and significant figure.

That's my tuppence worth at least, I hope I have been balanced!

Lapis lazuli

santing wrote: »

I don't think you can get rid of this theory that easily ... See e.g.
The Brethren of the Lord (Lightfoot, 1865) http://philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm

I wouldn't dream of it. No theory can be got rid of. That's theories for you.

I do agree that some Catholics can over-revere Mary at times, and go beyond Catholic teaching, but that's not the issue here.

There are also dozens of protestant commentaries out there that also affirm the virginity of Mary. We could both quote endless commentaries on the subject. I can't find the exact term 'half brother' or 'step brother' either in the old testament for such relatives, the word brother is used instead.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is also accepted by many Protestants, and was accepted by the majority of the Protestant reformers.

I noticed you cut parts out of the commentary you linked to :

In the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed 'the brethren of the Lord.' On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy.

santing

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

I wouldn't dream of it. No theory can be got rid of. That's theories for you.
...

There are also dozens of protestant commentaries out there that also affirm the virginity of Mary. We could both quote endless commentaries on the subject. I can't find the exact term 'half brother' or 'step brother' either in the old testament for such relatives, the word brother is used instead.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is also accepted by many Protestants, and was accepted by the majority of the Protestant reformers.

I noticed you cut parts out of the commentary you linked to :

The purpose of my quote was to show that option 2 (half brothers) has equally old roots, and is not a new invention.
The virginity of Mary (at time of birth) is plainly stated in Scripture, so that would get rid of option 1.
When Jerome formulated the cousin theory (the main RC view), it is quite obvious that he did not quote any of the so called fathers. Before he defended the virginity of Mary and he uses plenty of references to these! Scripture states clearly that his brothers (cousins according to Jerome) did not believe in the Lord, but James and John were cousins! The theory of Jerome also requires Mary to have a sister named Mary, which is not very likely.
The theory of step brothers (the main Orthodox view) is first found in an obscure book, supposedly written by James but at least 150 years later, about 100 years after James died. In this book Mary has no sisters, and she was a kind of vestal virgin in the temple when the Angel appeared to her.

What is at stake indeed is the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that is very difficult (read impossible) to defend from Scripture and was only required to make Christianity more palatable for the Gentiles.
I do agree that many of the reformers still hold to this theory, but I am glad that it has been found out to be wrong.

Lapis lazuli

santing wrote: »

I do agree that many of the reformers still hold to this theory, but I am glad that it has been found out to be wrong.

But it hasn't, that's the problem you're faced with, and that's why they hold to it.

martinedwards

the issue is that SOME prod denoms are very fundamental.

their attitude is "it says in the Bible that Jesus had brothers and sisters, therefore Mary clearly had other children"

The Catholic Church (in their view) has build this huge legend around Mary from hearsay and legend that ISN'T IN THE BIBLE therefore is unsubstantiated at best and utter garbage at worst.

the argument that the same word was used to mean brother as cousin just doesn't wash. every translation of the bible says brother.

therefore, to those who view the Bible rather than tradition as the basis of their theology, the whole Mary was a virgin in perpetuity thing is anti Biblical, and yet another thing for them to ramp up against the RC church to say that y'all are damned.

PERSONALLY.... I'm of the attitude that she had a normal marriage after Jesus birth, but if someone is convinced otherwise then hey! when we both get to heaven, we can track down Joseph, buy the guy a pint and ask him!!

Manach

martinedwards wrote: »

buy the guy a pint and ask him!!

A paid bar in heaven - HERETIC!!!!

leonil7

did Mary had sexual relations with Joseph considering they were both husband and wife ?

Mat 1:23 "A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will be called Immanuel" (which means, "God is with us").
Mat 1:24 So when Joseph woke up, he married Mary, as the angel of the Lord had told him to.
Mat 1:25 But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

did Jesus had brothers or sisters ? This is no longer an issue for dispute.

Luk 8:19 Jesus' mother and brothers came to him, but were unable to join him because of the crowd.

Mat 13:55 Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?
Mat 13:56 Aren't all his sisters living here? Where did he get all this?"
Mat 13:57 And so they rejected him. Jesus said to them, "A prophet is respected everywhere except in his hometown and by his own family."

John 2:12 After this, Jesus and his mother, brothers, and disciples went to Capernaum and stayed there a few days.

read it seventy x seven, it will always mean the same thing.

Lapis lazuli

Yes some Catholics do over revere Mary, far beyond Catholic teaching, no one here is disputing that.

For serious study of the issue, we need to look beyond that.

The problem is that brief sound bite posts cannot do it justice.

The Protestant reformers also affirmed the belief that Mary remained ever virgin as the ark of the new covenant.

Presumably these people understood and knew scripture as well as anyone else.

Luther wrote : "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli wrote: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin"

Calvin was less clear cut, but favored the perpetual virginity of Mary, and cautioning against "impious speculation"

The Anglican reformers also supported it.

John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, also supported the doctrine and wrote that: "... born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

---

You cannot ignore the complexities of language and translation.

No where does scripture use precise easy translations like 'half brother' or 'step brother'

It cannot be said that the NT identifies (Jesus' brothers and sisters) without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

It is also very important to note that the scripture does not say anywhere that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.

In the passages that refer to Jesus' brothers, the sacred authors are careful to only call Jesus the son of Mary, no one else. Additionally, in referring to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mk 6:3), the force of the Greek implies that Jesus was Mary's only son, not a son.

Concerning the word "brother," Fitzmyer notes: "The word did not simply mean 'blood brother,' and you will find in the Book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: 'compatriot,' 'kinsman, relative,' and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the Angel Raphael (in disguise), 'Brother Azariah' (6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean 'blood brother.'

The word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8).

Additionly, before dying on the cross Jesus left Mary's care, not to one of his supposidly younger brothers and sisters, which would be the norm, but to the apostle John.

It would be surprising for Jesus to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, and place her in the care of an apostle instead, especially because he criticised the Pharisees for neglecting the support of their own parents in Matthew 15:3-6.

"He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).

The correct use of the Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated.

The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ's birth. It doesn't imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death." We're obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

---

Even if we completely ignore the beliefs of the vast majority of early Christians and the Church Fathers, pages and pages can be filled supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary from scripture, but I'll leave it at that for now.

dvae

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Yes some Catholics do over revere Mary, far beyond Catholic teaching, no one here is disputing that.

For serious study of the issue, we need to look beyond that.

The problem is that brief sound bite posts cannot do it justice.

The Protestant reformers also affirmed the belief that Mary remained ever virgin as the ark of the new covenant.

Presumably these people understood and knew scripture as well as anyone else.

Luther wrote : "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli wrote: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin"

Calvin was less clear cut, but favored the perpetual virginity of Mary, and cautioning against "impious speculation"

The Anglican reformers also supported it.

John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, also supported the doctrine and wrote that: "... born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

---

You cannot ignore the complexities of language and translation.

No where does scripture use precise easy translations like 'half brother' or 'step brother'

It cannot be said that the NT identifies (Jesus' brothers and sisters) without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

It is also very important to note that the scripture does not say anywhere that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.

In the passages that refer to Jesus' brothers, the sacred authors are careful to only call Jesus the son of Mary, no one else. Additionally, in referring to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mk 6:3), the force of the Greek implies that Jesus was Mary's only son, not a son.

Concerning the word "brother," Fitzmyer notes: "The word did not simply mean 'blood brother,' and you will find in the Book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: 'compatriot,' 'kinsman, relative,' and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the Angel Raphael (in disguise), 'Brother Azariah' (6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean 'blood brother.'

The word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8).

Additionly, before dying on the cross Jesus left Mary's care, not to one of his supposidly younger brothers and sisters, which would be the norm, but to the apostle John.

It would be surprising for Jesus to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, and place her in the care of an apostle instead, especially because he criticised the Pharisees for neglecting the support of their own parents in Matthew 15:3-6.

"He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).

The correct use of the Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated.

The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ's birth. It doesn't imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death." We're obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

---

Even if we completely ignore the beliefs of the vast majority of early Christians and the Church Fathers, pages and pages can be filled supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary from scripture, but I'll leave it at that for now.

just a heads up. it seems someone is plagiarizing your work and posting it all over the internet.


http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

Donaldio

Is she ever credited with actually haveing said anything or are there any qoutes from her ? She always struck me as being very silent. I think an intersting point would be the annunciation by Gabriel who is also credited with dictating the Koran to Muhammad the cave where this is said to have happend is an impotant site in Islam very close to Mecca. The name Gabriel literally means might of god in hebrew Gibor = might + El

Lapis lazuli

dvae wrote: »

just a heads up. it seems someone is plagiarizing your work and posting it all over the internet.


http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

No, it's not my work, but I'm posting on a mobile device and find linking tricky, but thanks for putting up the links. Ewtn is another source.

dvae

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

No, it's not my work, but I'm posting on a mobile device and find linking tricky, but thanks for putting up the links. Ewtn is another source.

linking, its the same as copying and pasting. you should be familiar with that.

Lapis lazuli

dvae wrote: »

linking, its the same as copying and pasting. you should be familiar with that.

Well I'm all fingers and thumbs on touchscreen pad thingamajigs gadgets, hopefully I'll get used to them some day.

Turtwig

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Well I'm all fingers and thumbs on touchscreen pad thingamajigs gadgets, hopefully I'll get used to them some day.

If something isn't your own work. You need to give credit.

Charter. wrote:

If you are quoting from other sources, please provide a link or mention the source. Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Lapis lazuli

It wasn't intended to be plagiarism, but ok, if I can't link, in future I'll write the names of sites where I got the bits and pieces of info.

lmaopml

Donaldio wrote: »

Is she ever credited with actually haveing said anything or are there any qoutes from her ? She always struck me as being very silent. I think an intersting point would be the annunciation by Gabriel who is also credited with dictating the Koran to Muhammad the cave where this is said to have happend is an impotant site in Islam very close to Mecca. The name Gabriel literally means might of god in hebrew Gibor = might + El

Yes, she said some pretty important things that changed the course of man kind because we are born in Christ now and not in Adam, because of an 'Amen' that one young Lady gave freely to be an instrument of peace, whether she was reviled or loved was of no consequence. She said 'yes', when Eve said 'No' -

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.


50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, 52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 55 as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."

Our Lady has a special place, and so she should with Christians because anybody who sets an example is given honour by all Christians, and she may be female and a mother, but she is not just any Mother who gives birth, unless one loses the sense of who Jesus is - but certainly singled out. Not just a used vessel..

I think Scripture is pretty clear but also ones 'reason' plays a role in understanding how to honour a Mother, which we should always employ because it's a gift.

In particular this Mother should always be a point of meeting, and not a point of dispute if one really wants to see Christ, not only from a detached from the world way, but if one wants to connect with Christ than they know that a woman gave birth to him and consented, said 'yes' and to see him through 'her' eyes is always valuable, because she was the very first Christian with nothing to gain and everything to lose. He said as much when he gave her as Mother on the Cross to the faithful disciple. He didn't do the very last things without consideration. The last words should speak volumes to any person who calls himself a disciple, and not a pharisee.