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.)
|
|
|
Oh, which verses have been posted here that discuss other children of the Blessed Mother?
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.
Great question. I have NO CLUE why some post-Reformation Protestants have decided it's important to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.
Keep in mind that EVERY major Reformer publicly stated that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin. It was much later that Protestants decided that this was a Catholic-only belief.
>>In any event, my post was not an effort to communicate with you.<<
Point taken. Meanwhile, my post was directed at you. And it stands.
I haven't posted anything from the KJV.
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.
This requires you to reach a conclusion that Scripture does not support.
Good work. Dogma versus doctrine. Dogma = what one wants you to believe. Doctrine = what you need to believe. Generally speaking, of course. Can be difficult separating the two.
“Translation issue.”
No. The words mean the same in Greek and English.
“Which says nothing about AFTER the birth of Jesus.”
Does it PROVE it beyond any possibility of exception? No. Does the normal meaning of the word indicate a change afterward? Yes.
“Which does not say there were others, only that He was the first (none before Him).”
Again, prove beyond doubt? No. An indicator? Yes.
I’m not saying the scripture cannot be interpreted in any other way. Nor will anyone burn in hell for believing she remained a virgin. By all means - if you wish to believe it, go ahead. I can’t stop you, nor do I have great interest in doing so. Luther continued to do so, probably because of the emotions the mention of Mary generated in him, as did Calvin.
However, the first line of the posted article reads, “There is absolutely ho [sic] historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children.”
That is just silly. Someone may want to cast doubt on what the Gospels say, or offer a different interpretation, but it is silly to say there is NO evidence of the contrary view. Those of us who believe otherwise are not making up the passages that create our belief.
I’ve been reading Thiede’s “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity” and it has some point that I think would be interesting for this discussion.
We have a bad habit of looking at the people/events of that period through New Testament glasses. There was no New Testament at the time, no seperate community of Christians (they didn’t even call themselves Christians), nor a seperate Christian mindset. Christians of the day were Jews. They attended synagogue with other Jews, and they identified themselves as Jews. What made them different is they were Jews that believed the messiah had come, while other Jews thought he was still to come.
Christians and Jews would grow apart over the next centuries, but at the time of Christ they were both Jews. To understand Christians of the first century (and the NT Biblical characters) you have to understand them from a Jewish perspective of their time.
He discusses the Essenes’ celibacy and how at odds it is with Jewish thought of the day. God’s command to “Go forth and mulitply” was taken as seriously as any of the 10 commandments. Someone that refused to marry (and procreate within marriage) was commiting a sin on par with worshiping false idols or murder (it may seem odd to us today, but that was the thought in the day.)
Which brings us to Joseph and Mary. Not only was sex within marriage (as Paul also points out in his letters) NOT considered a sin, but a husband and wife not engaging in sex (and procreating) WAS considered a sin in Jewish thought of the day. Joseph and Mary (both being Jews and immersed in the Jewish religion/thought/culture of their day) would have been under tremendous social (and self imposed) pressure to have additonal children beyond Jesus.
The idea that Mary should remain a perpetual virgin to protect her from some taint of sin would have puzzled Jews of the day. Their response would have been “Sex between a husband and wife isn’t a sin; how can engaging in an activity that isn’t a sin (and also mandated by God) taint someone with sin?”
” have NO CLUE why some post-Reformation Protestants have decided it’s important to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.”
It is what the text states. It’s not a particularly important point.
And it’s not a new Protestant position. Tertullian (the “Father of the Latin Church” took the same position) (virgin before, not after).
“Keep in mind that EVERY major Reformer publicly stated that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin.”
Who cares? Martin Luther was also a nasty bigot.
A very basic belief of Protestantism is that men are fallable, and only God is reliable. That these mere men agreed with the point, and yet are also very much fallable men, is proof of concept.
“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.”
The only dispute any Eastern Christian Church, Orthodox or otherwise, has with official Roman Mariology is the dogna of the Immaculate Conception and, as W points out, that has to do with differing conceptions of the Sin of Adam, not Panagia herself. There is a technical difference about the Assumption. The Eastern Churches have not dogmatized that belief, though I know no Eastern Christian who does not believe that the Most Holy Theotokos was assumed bodily into heaven after her falling asleep in Christ.
Tertullian, btw, died a condemned heretic. he had some extremely bizarre beliefs in his later years.
“(James proto-something)”
The Protoevangelium of James. Here’s a link:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.iv.html
One reason I have for believing and teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Our Lord is to show that God is awesome and wholly good. His works know no bounds. As Mary said, "All generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name." Mary wasn't ordinary because God did extraordinary things to her.
“Oh, which verses have been posted here that discuss other children of the Blessed Mother?”
Post 27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2377539/posts?page=27#27
>>Oh, which verses have been posted here that discuss other children of the Blessed Mother?<<
Post 27 is a good start.
>>I have NO CLUE why some post-Reformation Protestants have decided it’s important to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.<<
I think a lot of them are saying there is enough evidence to show it was possible. Take my position, for example. Based on what I am reading, especially when looking at strongs G80, it is very reasonable to assume Jesus had brothers. It is also possible he did not.
It is like when I argue against those who believe in MMGW. It is not that I firmly believe there is NO MMGW. Rather, I am questioning their strong conviction that there IS, and based on scant and contradictory evidence.
IOW, I am not arguing MMGW with them. I am arguing their absurdly tenacious grip on an opinion as though it was irrefutable fact while they completely ignore relevant evidence that contradicts their position.
And that is what I am doing on this thread as well. The issue for me is not whether Mary had other children. To slightly reword the above:
It is not that I firmly believe Mary had or did not have kids or sex. Rather, I am questioning their strong conviction that she didn’t, and based on scant and contradictory evidence.
IOW, I am not arguing Mary’s perpetual virginity with them. I am arguing their absurdly tenacious grip on an opinion as though it was irrefutable fact while they completely ignore relevant evidence that contradicts their position.
>>I haven’t posted anything from the KJV.<<
I didn’t say you did. It was actually a twist of a friend of mine that used to say that he only used the King James bible because that was the one the apostle Paul used. :)
>>This requires you to reach a conclusion that Scripture does not support.<<
So, in plain english, how would YOU interpret the scripture to which I referred from your post?
Keep in mind that both the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. 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?
It is entirely possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage and these would be step-brothers and sisters,
Ummmm, wouldn’t stepbrothers/stepsisters fall under the ANYTHING category? How would raising a step child be any less distracting than rasing her own child?
“Other than that, I obviously have no opinions on the rest of the article.”
LOL
Thank you VERY much for the “fresh” perspective. I actually used this argument when people said that the story of Lazarus and the Rich man were proof that non-believers will suffer eternally in the lake of fire.
The story of Lazarus and the rich man was for listeners in a “pre-Christian” world and the accompanying world view. Like so much of the Bible, it needs to be taken in that context.
“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.”
He didn’t exactly do that — not that I care for the pick of these examples, either.
He made the subtle point that each person Mary, PP, and JI all played a specific role in the fulfillment of the prophecy.
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.
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.