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.)
|
|
|
However, there is no indication that the children are her’s.
>>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.<<
Thanks. I was using “absurd” examples solely to imply the full impact of the logical fallacy.
Your assumption is that having other children would interfere with the raising of Jesus. Have you really thought about that position?
There are good reasons that having many children was considered a blessing in antiquity. Children were put to work at a very young age. Boys labored and brought in money to the family, girls helped with cooking, cleaning, and domestic chores (which was hard tedious labor in those days.) Large famalies were a huge economic adavantage.
Had Jesus been an only child, his parents would have to had spent inordiante amounts of time working. Having additional children would have freed up Mary's and Joseph's time so they could have spent MORE time concentrating on Jesus.
Far from distracting from Jesus, additional children would have helped his parents spend more time with Jesus.
Mary did such a wonderful, brave and obedient thing, giving birth to the Savior, no doubt enduring gossip and talk. I don’t see why, after that, God would require her to marry some 90-year-old geezer and never have a normal marriage and more children. Having sons was so important to women in those days, too.
The only evidence that I will admit gives me pause is Jesus asking John to take care of His mother, rather than having one of His siblings do it. But I hope Joseph was way younger than 90, and I hope he and Mary were able to have a normal marriage. It doesn’t matter now, and it doesn’t affect anyone’s salvation, but I certainly think they both deserved it.
You still haven't explained why you launched off into using a red-herring when you said that my interpretation of scripture was of no use to you. I gave no interpretation of any specific scripture in the first place. Hence the necessity of my responding the way that I did.
I spoke of the omnipotence and omniscience of God, which even the most elementary of Christians knows of (but of which the ignorant and unlearned do not know of nor grasp). Therefore no interpretation was necessary since I gave no scripture to even interpret in the first place. Hence, there was no need to for you to say that my interpretation of scripture was of no use to you.
God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. It is not my interpretation. That IS scriptural. the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox, and the overwhelming majority of Protestants all believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
They are all in agreement that God is Omniscient and Omnipotent. Period. The RCC, the Greek Orthodox and almost all Protestant denominations have ALL decided that it is heresy to say that God isn't omnipotent and omniscient or even imply or infer that.
That you would respond “in your interpretation,” concerning the omnipotence and omniscience of God shows that you need to spend less time debating this issue (Mary's perpetual virginity) and get back to more basic doctrines, given your heretical ways and lack of knowledge concerning one of the most elementary of doctrines: the Omnipotence and Omniscience of God.
Now you are using a Straw Man by saying that I am conflating omniscience and omnipotence with rigid predetermination.
Your posts are full of logical fallacies. They hold no significance.
There is no conflation of omnipotence and omniscience with rigid predetermination on my part, given that I am both Calvinist AND Armenian concerning man's free will and God's sovereignty.
How is it both? Simple.
God knew what choices we would make in this universe, but it was God who ultimately decided to bring this universe into existence.
God gave man free will, YET He knew what every humans free will choices would be before He brought this universe into existence. God gave us the free will to make our choices from Adam and Eve until now.
God is still sovereign, though. God chose to bring this universe into existence, the universe in which we made those free will choices that God knew we would make before He even brought this universe into existence.
All of humanity made and does make the choices according to the free will that God gave all of us (Armenianism), but it was God who set those choices in stone (Calvinism) when He brought our choices into existence by creating the universe in which we would make those choices.
Someday hopefully people will begin to grasp all of this.
When did Protestants start to regect the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity?
Freegards
“However, there is no indication that the children are her’s.”
The step-brother hypothesis (from “The Protoevangelium of James”) seemed a good idea to me to reconcile the plain text of scripture that says “brothers” with the Roman tradition of perpetual virginity.
It may yet be.
The problem I see with that theory is that Jesus was Messiah, that is, heir to the throne of David, which was passed paternally, and, by right, would go to the eldest son.
Ergo, an elder step-brother would be the proper king.
That said, God skipped the eldest son (or the son skipped voluntarily) on a number of notable occassions — perhaps such a “skip” occurred here, too.
If so, it makes James an even more remarkable man.
That was probably the only funny thing on this thread.
Not a red-herring. You offered an interpretation of Scripture that is of no use to me.
I gave no interpretation of any specific scripture in the first place.
Really?
This is your post.
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.Where did you get that part in quotes? Where did you learn about God creating the universe? Where did you learn about God?
Therefore no interpretation was necessary since I gave no scripture to even interpret in the first place.
Bzzzt.
Now you are using a Straw Man by saying that I am conflating omniscience and omnipotence with rigid predetermination.
You are conflating them:
All of humanity made and does make the choices according to the free will that God gave all of us (Armenianism), but it was God who set those choices in stone (Calvinism) when He brought our choices into existence by creating the universe in which we would make those choices."Free" choice set in stone by God is not free.
“When did Protestants start to regect the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity?”
If you count Tertullian as the first Protestant, somewhere between 160 and 220AD. The official Marian doctrines were established by the Roman Church 300 years later, at around 541AD.
So a long time.
I would opine the new protestants started rejecting these (and other) docrines with the advent of the printing press.
541=431
Sorry!
It may yet be.
The problem I see with that theory is that Jesus was Messiah, that is, heir to the throne of David, which was passed paternally, and, by right, would go to the eldest son.
Ergo, an elder step-brother would be the proper king.
That said, God skipped the eldest son (or the son skipped voluntarily) on a number of notable occassions — perhaps such a “skip” occurred here, too.
If so, it makes James an even more remarkable man.
However, our Lord's Kingship DID NOT pass through Saint Joseph.
“However, our Lord’s Kingship DID NOT pass through Saint Joseph.”
Then he wouldn’t be the Jewish King (which he was).
It’s a paternal title, through the line of David -— and adopted sons are fine.
Specifically, the mother (the matrilineal) determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person’s father (the patrilineal in accordance with Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Priesthood Lineage]; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kingship Lineage].).
For instance, in Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we’re told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers’ houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn’t pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).
(
In what way would Mary be lessened by fulfilling Genesis 2:24 which is ordained by God Himself...
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24
and have more children after Jesus ???
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1:24, 25
Yes, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born...
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23
But she was a normal Jewish girl and a normal married woman and had a normal Jewish marriage...
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24
The “one flesh” indicates sex, the only way two would become one...
Mary did not get married in the Jewish sense and then just live in a vacuum, wrapped in cotton wool, and behind glass, the untouchable goddess...
She lived as a married woman in every sense of the word...
Joseph was in charge of the home etc...
God told him where to live or travel...
And he was not 90...He was still young and able..
He was a carpenter and taught Jesus the trade...
A 90 year old man could not have handled the tools that were used...
Jesus was called “the carpenter’s son” when he was grown..
So if Joseph was dead it hadnt happened that long before this was said...
There is no shame in Mary fulfilling what was necessary to have a legitimate marriage...
She only said to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34 because she hadnt as yet...
That verse does not indicate she woulod never have sex with her lawful husband...
She was engaged to Joseph...She expected to have sex to consumate their marriage...
And she was not an “innocent” virgin who didnt know about sex...she told the angel she knew it led to pregnancy...
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34
Mary fully intended to have sex with her husband after they were married, and was taught and preparted for it...
and so she did...after Jesus was born...
If God intended to use an ignorant unknowing girl as the mother of Jesus He was quite capable of keeping that knowledge from her “innocent” pure ears...
And then arranging for her to live out her natural life in a nunnery...
That type of woman would be too pure, too blessed to do anything as common as raise her own child and change his poopy diapers...
No, Mary was a normal Jewish girl with a normal Jewish marriage...
What? if Mary would have said no, God would have packed up and went home???
What if the mule Mary rode in on stumbled and broke one of it's legs, and Mary fell and had a miscarriage???
What if the Red Sea had never parted??? There wouldn't be any Mary to worry about...
God brought Israel thru a couple thousand years of history but when it came to Mary, who incidentally was prophesied in the OT, God left it to chance??? Of course not...
Stop with the fairy tales...
God does not pass out common sense as a tool to understand his ways...He hands out the Holy Spirit to understand Spiritual things...
“The only evidence that I will admit gives me pause is Jesus asking John to take care of His mother, rather than having one of His siblings do it.”
That problem would still exist if the ‘brothers’ were step brothers or cousins. The nearest male kin would have been the normal choice.
Around the year 2 or 3 A.D...When the other kids started showing up...
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.