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.)
|
|
|
BTW, your sig is one of my favorite Lewis quotes.
By all means cite the verses which indicate this.
And, more to the point, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they did not.
Why did Jesus Christ entrust His mother to St. John at the Crucifixion if He had brothers? Why would He violate Jewish tradition in this way?
It is actually an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No, it is impossible to prove a negative. YOU would need to prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.
>>However, there is no indication that the children are her’s.<<
...or they are not hers.
Petronski,
It isn’t my interpretation of scripture. That is a diversionary red-herring by you and personalized ad hominem from you to boot.
What it is, is God being Ominscient and Omnipotent.
Period.
God brought into existence through His omnipotent power what He in His omniscience knew would be.
What he brought into existence could not be different from or turn out differently (as the milleniums rolled by) than what He knew would be.
Then whose is it?
It is useless to me no matter the interpretation's author.
You continue to conflate omniscience and omnipotence with rigid predetermination.
What it is, is God being Ominscient and Omnipotent.
In your interpretation.
Let's see:
46 And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. 48 And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them.
51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. 52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.
-- Luke 2:46-52
No, I don't see any indication that they were upset with Him.
And just when I was thinking the Orthodox were indistinguishable from Baptists, except more beards and fewer baseball caps...
;>)
I refer your to Exodus 20:16.
>>Again we see the lamentably common mistake of conflating fore-knowledge with fore-ordination.<<
I think you are getting too bogged down with definitions of response categories. Wagglebee’s comment was effective at communicating a position. That is a good thing.
You did, you expressed doubt that the Eastern Church believes in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
I really don’t care what people add to the Bible; that’s between them and God.
The only people adding anything are the ones that add the idea that the Blessed Mother had other children.
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.
Orthodox beliefs on this are a little different from Catholicism's but this has more to do with their beliefs about original sin than their beliefs about the Blessed Mother.
I was addressing wagglebee directly and I believe he understands.
You are free to read and reply to an open comment, but I do not believe you understand.
In any event, my post was not an effort to communicate with you.
Her words were "I know not man". That is not the same as I am a virgin. I know not man has not limits on it while I am a virgin does.
>>By all means cite the verses which indicate this.<<
Pretty much any verse discussing Mary, which are few and far between, and have been brought up many times in this thread.
>>Why would He violate Jewish tradition in this way?<<
First, Jesus was an expert at violating “the letter” of the Jewish tradition. Second, even if I were to say, “Ok, the only child born of Mary was Jesus”, what does that have to do with any of us at all. I’m really missing something here.
“By all means cite the verses which indicate this.”
All the verses already cited about the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
“Why did Jesus Christ entrust His mother to St. John at the Crucifixion if He had brothers? Why would He violate Jewish tradition in this way?”
Why wouldn’t he have entrusted her to ANY male family members, if he had step-brothers?
“YOU would need to prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.”
Sorry, but given verses talking about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, and Joseph refraining from intercourse UNTIL the birth of Jesus, and Jesus being the firstborn, it is up to YOU to explain why folks shouldn’t take those at face value.
It is biblical though. God regretted picking Saul in the OT.
“TTR, where in heaven’s name did you get the idea. . . “?
I didn’t. Or at least I didn’t mean to give that impression. I know there is some sort of split, but I think the Roman Church/various Eastern Churches (not just Orthodox) split on Marian issue are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.
For historical purposes, this (the ever-virgin dispute) has been around for a long time -— it’s not a protestant thing.
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian was a notable early Christian apologist, and became known as “the father of Latin Christianity.”
He had a whole series of splits with what-eventually-became the Roman church, one of which was his rejection of perpetual virginity, contending that James-the-Epistle-writer was, indeed, the half brother of Jesus as the text states, and rejecting some apocryphal text (James proto-something) as a fake.
Translation issue.
...and Joseph refraining from intercourse UNTIL the birth of Jesus...
Which says nothing about AFTER the birth of Jesus.
...and Jesus being the firstborn...
Which does not say there were others, only that He was the first (none before Him).
>>No, I don’t see any indication that they were upset with Him.<<
Let me point it out specifically: “And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.”
Now, back in the Jerusalem of Jesus time everyone spoke in King James English so it needs to be translated into modern English. Let me take a stab at it (although this is only my interpretation):
And his mom came up and said, “son, why did you take off without telling us where you were? We’ve been frantically looking all over for you. We were worried sick.”
They may have even been planning on grounding Him for a week.
The point is, they were treating him as a parent might treat any child that took off without telling them where he was going. That at least implies a certain “normal” relationship between them and Him.
Mary has free will. She had to consent to God. The Saints in heaven and have free will. How is that?
>>The only people adding anything are the ones that add the idea that the Blessed Mother had other children.<<
...and backing it up with scripture.
Your position puzzles me.
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.