Posted on 11/03/2009 9:42:30 AM PST by GonzoII
There is absolutely ho historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (which necessarily includes her virginity after the birth of Christ) has been so deeply rooted in Catholic Tradition from the very beginning, that the Fathers of the Church instinctively and vigorously rose to its defense every time early heretics questioned it. Among the many witnesses that could be mentioned in this connection are: Origen, St. Epheaem, St. Hilary, St. Zeno, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many others. The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin also accepted the Catholic doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.
Mt.13:55, and Mk. 6:3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas. But Mt. 27:56, says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there. So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that – unless we suppose these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph (Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.
Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other two, Simon and Judas.
Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.
The words “brother” or “sister” were defined by their use.
The Hebrew and Aramaic ah was used for various types of relations. Hebrew had no word for cousin. They could say ben-dod, which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as “the son of the brother of his mother” or, “the son of the sister of his mother”.
Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:27-31) is called his brother in Gen. 13:8 and 14:14-16. Certainly, the Greek language does have words for cousins and other relatives, but the Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT -- abbreviated LXX) uses Greek adelphos, brother, for Lot - who as mentioned above, was really a nephew, so that objection doesn’t prove the case.
Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is especially true with St. Paul. And there is strong evidence that St. Luke at some points was translating Hebrew documents.
Mt. 1:25 – “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus”. Non-Catholics like to point to two words here, “until” and “firstborn”.
Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated. However this was not always the case. In Dt. 34:6, Moses was buried, “and to this day no one knows where the grave is”. That was true in the day of the writer of Dt.; it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1, as interpreted by Jesus Himself (Mt.22; 42-46), “The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” Of course, Jesus was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic Psalm, says that in his days “peace will abound until the moon is no more.” Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had no son until the day of her death. Of course, she did not have one after that either! In Mt.11:23, our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, “it would have lasted until the present day.” Had it lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20, Jesus promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world, does that mean He will desert us in eternity. In Romans 8:22, St. Paul says that all creation groans, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God until Paul’s day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13, the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself to reading, exhortation and teaching “until I come.” He did not mean Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come. There are more, but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.
Jesus is called firstborn in Luke 2:7 (and also in Mt 1:25, if we take the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew bekor, which chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf. Biblica 11, 1930, 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: “In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.
There are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady had other children. The decisive reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her aei-parthenos = “Ever-virgin.”
According to Papias [AD second century] – “Mary, the mother of the Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the less and Joseph, wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands” (The Fragments of Papias).
Rather than using the word “brothers” it would be more accurate to use the word “brethren.” Any way you look at it, Mary, the mother of Jesus, had only one child natural child. The rest of us are her children by adoption.
© 2004 – Victor R. Claveau
Part or all of this article may be reproduced without obtaining permission as long as the author is cited.
"For as a virgin she conceived,
as a virgin she gave birth,
a virgin she remained."
-St. Augustine: Sermons, 52. (5th cent.)
|
|
|
I will never understand that kind of malicious deprecation of the Mother of God. It makes no sense.
That refers to the Book of Revelation.
My intent is not to come between you and the Lord but if you except the Bible, which of course I do also, as the word of God, you have to rely on some authority outside the Bible to confirm that what we read is Divinely inspired.
>>Sola Scriptura is a false tradition of men.<<
I agree. That is why my answer was not dependent on “sola”.
Then do not be surprised if he refuses your moot demand that he show you where the info in #81 appears in Scripture.
>>I will never understand that kind of malicious deprecation of the Mother of God. It makes no sense.<<
My point is not about Mary. It is about the flawed logic of the comment regarding Mary.
It still doesn’t make any sense. Mary was espoused.
Mary is Blessed and all generations will call her so.
The point you might have been trying to make is irrelevant.
What you actually did is equate the Mother of God with Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him and Pontius Pilate who handed Him over for death.
That is obscene.
However, this overlooks the fact that the Holy Family was the most decidedly ABNORMAL family in all of history.
Keep in mind that both the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had been visited by Gabriel and told that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. They were entrusted to watch over the Son of God, could you imagine even considering ANYTHING which would distract them from this? Do you honestly think that they would consider sex more important than the fact that they actually had God living in their home?
Also, recall that NOBODY is referred to as a child of Mary other than our Lord and NOBODY identifies themself as a brother of our Lord. It is entirely possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage and these would be step-brothers and sisters, but the notion that Jesus Christ had half-brothers and sisters is not found in Scripture. Additionally, this would have created a very difficult situation down the line where some might have tried to set-up a kingship through the bloodlines of Mary's other children and this NEVER happened.
>>...you have to rely on some authority outside the Bible to confirm that what we read is Divinely inspired.<<
I agree. However, it is easy to cross a line. I trust NO man explicitly. I may agree with something the Pope says, or the president of the LDS or even Jim Jones. But I reserve the right, via prayer and a relationship with my personal Savior and Lord, to throw out anything I believe contradicts who the Bible says He is.
It is one reason I very much agree with this guy, and it is an “extra-biblical” source that is INTERPRETING scripture: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2240648/posts
I believe Erasmus and More both were among those who ridiculed the theological discussions of some medieval doctors.
If you think that being stoned to death is funny, I suggest you go to Saudi Arabia and repeat your comments. The Muslims give Mary more respect than the Western heretics (perhaps because they are Eastern heretics).
>>Then do not be surprised if he refuses your moot demand that he show you where the info in #81 appears in Scripture.<<
Fair enough. I guess a better question would be to ask why he believes they are right.
“When did folks first start believing that Mary had other kids?”
Based on the Gospels, I’d say around 5-10 AD...
>>It still doesn’t make any sense. Mary was espoused.<<
“Espoused” did not have the same meaning then that we give it today. The critical statement, however, is Mary’s own words: “I am a virgin”. It’s right there. Ultimately I must re-iterate that it matters not, regarding whether she had sex with her husband after Jesus birth. It is not relevant to anything discussed anywhere in the Bible regarding my relationship with God or my relationship with my fellow man.
I believe the bible does give us information to determine the claim some make that ‘she was always a virgin’ is false.
Just as the bible does not say “Trinity” explicitly, we can figure out by reading what is written that God is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In the same way, we can read the following about Mary and come to the conclusion that Joseph KNEW her, in the biblical sense (ie sexually), AFTER she had given birth to Jesus. And thus, she could not be a virgin if she KNEW Joseph, and it is clear this occurred.
Supporting evidence in gospels confirm the idea because they mention that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
“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?” (Mt 13:55,56).
Also: “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 3:31,32).
Some in the Roman church say that they were his cousins or relatives. If this was the case, why would the biblical authors use the word ‘brothers’ instead of ‘relatives’ and ‘cousins’? (cf. Luke 1:36; Colossians 4:10). We have already seen in responses here there were such terms available to make a more accurate distinction. After all Scripture itself makes the case that God is not the author of confusion, and why would we not expect Scripture to be written clearly an unambiguously for such a uncomplicated idea whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters.
The Roman church bought into the concept early on that the state of marriage was a lower state of grace than being celibate/virginal. Based on the idea that sex, even sex in marriage, is a defiling act. In their minds Mary has to be ever virgin as to not soil or defile herself as she was the God-bearer. For her to have sex like regular people is beneath her. The bible, however does not make any such wicked pronouncement about sex between a man and wife, and even compares the oneness and unique, God-blessed closeness of man and wife to the relationship between Christ and the church (His Bride):
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4).
The Bible compares the love relationship between Christ and His church to the marriage relationship between husband and wife. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:31,32).
The Roman church instead has always viewed sex as dirty and polluting and a necessary evil to bring children into the world. People who like sex are sick and dirty. Even married people. And it’s been like this for a very long time, fostered by the concept that virginity is better than those who have sex in marriage, and we can’t have a Mary who degraded and defiled herself and had sex with her husband.
>>Mary is Blessed and all generations will call her so.<<
You bet! What exactly does that mean, though? What does it mean when someone says they are “blessed” to have three great kids?
What “Christian” woman today would not have been “blessed” if God chose them to be the mother of God in the flesh?
Can you imagine if Mary had other children, everyone would know who the half brothers and sisters of Christ were to this day!
Just kind of a generalized comment; I don’t know how to not direct a post to a person.
(And my English is not ideal, either.)
>>What you actually did is equate the Mother of God with Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him and Pontius Pilate who handed Him over for death.
That is obscene.<<
Within the context of the point the poster was making, it is also accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.