Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry, not following that. Abraham didn’t what?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes. What you (and I) said.

[ealgeone]

What we said was vastly different.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“To a blinded unbeliever like you, perhaps, but Michael is dressed as a disciple of Yeshua would have been dressed in the early centuries AD.

So you’re saying he isn’t a con man, he was just born 2,000 years too late??

“The garment is called a Talit, and is the one to the corners of which the blue threads of the tassles would be attached.”

The garnet is a Talit.
The man is a false teacher

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please explain how "indicative active aorist" is vastly different from "aorist, indicative, active."

Thank you.

[ealgeone]

Your description of what it describes was way off. That’s the real issue.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You: "Mary was a sinner."

Archangel: "Hail, you (fem) who have already been (passive) filled (perfect) with grace."

So, who to believe? That's a toughie, all right.

[editor-surveyor]

.

The man is a teacher sent by Yehova.

He teaches only scripture, and that only in full context.

That may be why you distrust him; I’ve noticed that you use only select clipped soundbites that turn the truth into a lie by omission.

[ravenwolf]

BTW, I was laughing at the following: “... why would they be referred to as Jesus`s brothers and sisters if they were Mary`s children?”

---

I don`t blame you so go ahead and laugh, what i was meaning to say is that them being called brothers and sisters of Jesus would not make them children of Mary.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"Here's a research project: find me the first Christian theologian who dissented from this and labeled Mary a sinner. I bet you a pound cake and a quart of strawberries you can't find any before the 16th century."

I'll take that bet, but I insist on organic 🍓!

-------------------------

“In contrast to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection, none of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her Son’s rebuke, and Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, [HarperOne, 1978], p. 493).

Concerning Origen’s comments Kelly cites his work Homilies on Luke, 17. Romanist scholar Ludwig Ott gave an important admission stating, “individual Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [Tan Books and Publishers, 1960], p. 203).

Moreover, church historian Philip Schaff relayed that Irenaeus “was still widely removed from the notion of the sinlessness of Mary, and expressly declares the answer of Christ in John ii. 4, to be a reproof of her premature haste” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 415). He also remarked, “In the same way Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, and even Chrysostom, with all their high esteem of the mother of our Lord, ascribe to her on one or two occasions (John ii. 3; Matt. Xiii. 47) maternal vanity, also doubt and anxiety, and make this the sword (Luke ii. 35) which, under the cross, passed through her soul” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], pp. 415-416).

Roman Catholic patristic scholar Luigi Gambero concedes that John Chrysostom “does not hesitate to attribute defects and imperfections to Mary . . . he interprets certain Gospel passages in such a way as to attribute defects to the virgin Mary such as unbelief or vanity” (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, [Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 172). These are sins and all sin is incompatible with the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Gambero also admits Basil of Caesarea “considers himself justified in affirming that the Virgin’s holiness was not totally without shadow. He refers to the doubt that she suffered at the moment of her Son’s Passion, which Simeon had foretold, using the metaphor of the sword” (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, [Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 148).

It is germane to highlight here Philip Schaff’s remark that “Jerome taught the universal sinfulness without any exception, Adv. Pelag. ii, 4” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 418 n. 2).

Cyril of Alexandria (A. D. 376 – 444) also taught that Mary sinned in severe ways thereby holding to a position in opposition to an immaculate conception:

“For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/10/the-early-church-did-not-believe-romes.html?m=1

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” “Hail, you (fem) who have already been (passive) filled (perfect) with grace.”

Ah, wishegesis strikes again.

Please refer to my plenteous posts to you upthread about the meaning of the Greek words.

[editor-surveyor]

Gabriel did not say Mary was sinless; he plainly said that she was a recipient of Yehova’s grace (without which we could never hope to be saved)

So is everyone who has received grace automatically sinless? (IOW, was Peter just a plain liar?)

[Mrs. Don-o]

BTW, my Ephesians 1:6 verse was not from a Catholic Bible translation. It was from BibleHub/Aramaic, which is what the setting at the website happened to be at the time. Look it up if you like:

http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/ephesians/1.htm/a>

This is pedantic in relation to our discussion however. No matter what Ephesians translation you choose, it doesn't change the Angel Gabriel's brilliantly coined word Kecharitomene from being what's indicated by Luke's grammar: perfect passive participle, and unprecedented.

The Annunciation / Incarnation is so wonderful and tells us so much. It was a high point of the history of the human race, and of the Universe.

A traditional Renaissance-era depiction, Botticelli:

`

`

In a neo-iconic style:

`

`

My own personal favorite:

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course she was a recipient of God's grace. Her spirit rejoices in God "her Savior."

You ask: "So is everyone who has received grace automatically sinless?"

No. There are different kinds of grace, different kinds of gifts. In Mary's case, not for her own vainglory but strictly to prepare her for her role in God's plan, she was gifted with a sinless human nature, like that of Eve in Eden before sin came into the world. Thus she was able to transmit a perfect human nature to her Child, who is God Incarnate.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course she was a recipient of God's grace. Her spirit rejoices in God "her Savior."

You ask: "So is everyone who has received grace automatically sinless?"

No. There are different kinds of grace, different kinds of gifts. In Mary's case, not for her own vainglory but strictly to prepare her for her role in God's plan, she was gifted with a sinless human nature, like that of Eve in Eden before sin came into the world. Thus she was able to transmit a perfect human nature to her Child, who is God Incarnate.

As I wrote to metmom, either Mary was, by Divine grace, preserved from sin, or Jesus was sinfully depraved in His humanity, the heir of her fallen flesh.

[ravenwolf]

Once again; good ol’ Rome fills in the blanks.

---

Not just Rome, but also her prostitute daughters as well.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I completely disagree.

Biblically, only the sins of the father are visited unto the sons.

It had nothing to do with Mary.

Had Adam not joined Eve in sin, we would not have had a sin nature to inherit.
.
.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think we're already well acquainted with each others' plenteous posts.

"Wishegesis"? Ha! I'm usin' that!

Inspired by you and others who shall remain unnamed, I was thinking, "Yeah, that's flex-egesis." I like to look into the "regression-of-Y-on-X-egesis" (to determine the most probable values of Y: I could show you on a graph) --- but that's way too complicated.

"Wishagesis" takes the prize!

[MHGinTN]

Utter fabricated mythology! ... "Thus it is a reasonable inference from evidence (if you actually have evidence, why not post it, instead of claiming something not in evidence?), that the purification was accomplished at her conception." You claim as axiomatic that which is in question. But that is the way Magic Thinking works!

[Mrs. Don-o]

It had to do with Mary inasmuch as she had a human father, and the human-fatherhood goes back, beget by beget, all the way to Adam.

She had a human nature, and that human nature was passed onto Jesus. And it was sinless.

Do you think that a child developed from human cloning, product of a maternal somatic cell nucleus introduced into a denucleated ovum, and artificially induced into embryogenesis without sperm, would not have a sin nature?