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.)
|
|
|
Lol. That dieth not!!
Mk:9:44:
Pretty sure a lot of the “Eastern Churches” have never accepted the Roman doctrine of perpetual virginity.
After all, James the Just is “James Adelphotheos,” i.e. literally “James the Brother of God.”
(He was killed, BTW.)
>> Lol. That dieth not!!
Mk:9:44:<<
Not as simple as you think. Both sides are vetted pretty well here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2240648/posts
It does not belong in this thread.
Actually I know some never did.
The successors to the Apostles is as far back as I’ve been able to trace the clear written belief in the ever-virginity of Mary. Not all of the ECF’s were sold on the ever-virginity of Mary, though.
The book “A Dictionary of Early Christian beliefs,” gives the name of some pre-Nicene ECF’s who didn’t and lists writings by them that shows this.
What it comes down to is 1.) one either believes that the ECF’s writings were equal in authority to the written scriptures or they don’t and 2.) whether or not the spurious Protevangelion of James (mid to late 2nd century writing) and another spurious writing from that era was the result of a pre-existing belief in the ever-virginity of Mary, or if these were written by an isolated few whose books then caused this belief to spread.
I don't even know what point you are trying to make here.
I know lots of married couples with one, or no, kids. Although I don’t have a camera in their bedroom, I suspect they are having sex from time to time.
The ONLY PROOF that has ever been offered that the Blessed Mother was not a virgin is other children. Moreover, unless either the husband or wife is infertile, it is nearly impossible for a couple to only one child or no children unless contraception is being used.
I am absolutely positive that you are WRONG.
>>you are quite clever.<<
Thanks for the compliment. My salvation certainly does not depend on it, however.
“The ONLY PROOF that has ever been offered that the Blessed Mother was not a virgin is other children.”
Well, that’s enough to convince ME!
However, there is no indication that the children are her’s.
When God brought this universe into existence, He knew before that moment that he created this universe that Mary would say yes.
Mary said yes, but it was God who brought her agreeing “Be it done unto me according to thy word,” into existence by first bringing her into existence by first bringing this universe into existence - the universe that He wanted to create - the universe that He knew she would say yes in.
Did Mary consent to God bringing this universe into existence, the one in which there would be an Earth that she would be born on and say to Gabriel “be it done unto me according to thy word?”
No.
Thank you for sharing your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
It is useless to me.
In order for me to be wrong, I would have had to make an affirmative statement.
I really don’t care what people add to the Bible; that’s between them and God.
Maybe I am thinking of the rejection of the Roman Marian beliefs of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, but I don’t know the ins and outs of extra-Biblical beliefs.
for later
And you, W, are absolutely, positively and completely correct!
TTR, where in heaven's name did you get the idea that The Orthodox Church doesn't accept the doctrine that the Most Holy Theotokos and Mother of God was perpetually a Virgin? One of our titles for her is "ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας", "ever virgin Mary". Where did you think Rome got its devotion to Panagia from? It came from us.
>>The ONLY PROOF that has ever been offered that the Blessed Mother was not a virgin is other children. Moreover, unless either the husband or wife is infertile, it is nearly impossible for a couple to only one child or no children unless contraception is being used.<<
I agree with everything you said there. And with that, it would be very reasonable to assume, based on everything I read in the bible on the subject, that AFTER Jesus’ birth, Mary and her husband had sex. And, more to the point, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they did not. It is actually an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What people seem to overlook is that there was ABSOLUTELY NOT NEED for Jesus Christ to be born at all. He could have simply materialized as a full-grown Man.
God CHOSE the Blessed Virgin Mary and she said YES. Did He know she would consent, certainly, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t her choice.
I cannot begin to imagine the awesome responsibility that the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph were tasked with and because of that it is incomprehensible to me that they would allow ANYTHING to interfere with what God tasked them to do.
>>I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.<<
The point I am trying to make is that “mom and dad” got upset with “God”, just like the normal parent-child relationship. Their family may have been more normal than many presume.
Again we see the lamentably common mistake of conflating fore-knowledge with fore-ordination.
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.