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 - she CONSENTED to bring Him into the world????
Without Mary there would be no Jesus, no savior?
God’s plan for salvation of the world required the CONSENT of a human?
So God was sitting around thinking
Wow, I hope she agrees. If this girl doesn’t say yes I don’t know WHAT I will do, I mean, I’m God and everything, but I really hope (I wish I could pray for help, but, you know, I’m God, so that won’t work) I mean really really hope that she comes through. Here I am, God, with a master plan written before the foundation of the world, waiting for a call back from Mary.
The problem with the over-emphasis on Mary is that it detracts from the power and majesty that is God.
Do you think Mary had influence on the morality of the incarnate living God? Christ, free from sin and able to calm even the wind with just a word, needed Mary to teach him right from wrong? Mary was BLESSED with the HONOR of caring for Jesus.
Consent? You insult God with such careless statements.
The true insult to God is to deny His omnipotence by claiming He could not create a being with free will.
That version of God makes the Holy Spirit some kind of rapist. Either the Holy Spirit's action was consensual or not.
You wrote:
“I don’t agree with this, but it’s also a how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of issue.”
Two points:
1) There is no evidence anyone actually EVER argued over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It may very well be a pious Protestant fraud from the Anglican divine named Chillingworth.
2) As a professor once pointed out to me: If the argument ever took place, it would actually be an important and useful way to explain the philosophical and scientific considerations about space and matter. Can an incorporeal being, or many incorporeal beings, occupy physical space in the physical world? Angels certainly seem to have done so according to descriptions in the Bible, but how exactly does that work out in the relationship between the corporeal and incorporeal? This sort of disputation was important for the development of arguments and theories related to optics, matter, etc.
You’re shooting fish in a barrel today.
>>I disagree. 1. A virgin wed to an aged man could and 2. There is no evidence in the Bible she wasn’t a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. Why this is impossible after the Incarnation doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t make a lot of sense either to have another child after you just gave birth to the Son of God.<<
Regarding number one, I agree. There are exceptions to every rule.
Regarding number two, you are correct about that. However, There is no record of many childless married couples alive today having sex. It is still reasonable to assume they do. There is absolutely NOTHING in the bible that would cause me to in any way assume that Joseph and Mary did not have sex. Remembember, she may have given birth to the Son of God, but life goes on. You still live it a day at a time. If she was a normal healthy woman and her husband was too, they most certainly had sex. To suggest otherwise is not viewing them from a “real people” lens.
There is nothing in the bible that explicitly says they had sex. Then again, there is nothing in my grandfather’s record that specifically said he drove his tractor. However, he had a tractor and a small farm with no farmhands.
I’m gonna bet he drove his tractor.
>>now that their is funny...
how exactly would you have been saved without Mary?<<
God would have chosen someone else.
>>I believe that Mary was a Godly woman and had sex with Joseph after Jesus’ birth. But the verse you quote is a translation. The original language for “until” has a very specific sequence which means up until and has no linguistic value for the future. Looking at all of the evidence in the Bible, taking into account the original language, the Bible does not say either way if Mary was ever virgin or not.
Without tradition, there is no meaningful salvation difference between ever virgin and not. Logically, I would relate a virgin wife to a fig tree that doesn’t bear fruit. It’s just wrong.<<
This.
Which begs the question, “how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?”
;)
You wrote:
“God’s plan for salvation of the world required the CONSENT of a human?”
The world was damned by the first woman (and yes, the first man’s) consent to disobedience to God.
Why wouldn’t the world’s redemption include a woman’s obedience to God?
As St. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.) wrote:
“Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word” [Luke 1:38] Eve, however, was disobedient. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
How exactly would you have been damned without Eve?
Wow, I am simply flabbergasted.
I said nothing of the sort - diminishing God’s power is the problem with Mary-ists. They give her honor reserved unto God alone. Rape of the Holy Spirit? You are way off the deep end. Seriously.
Since you seem to think there was some request made by God to Mary - how did that conversation go? Or did He submit his request in writing, perhaps in triplicate with copies for her attorney and Rabbi to put on file. A Biblical reference would be a good start...
What would have happened had Mary said no?
No Christ?
God needs a plan B?
Some other girl?
Explain then to me how your version fits Biblically.
***
I am not denying free will - but God had and has a plan. Mary was honored to be part of it, not the other way around. The constant battle to defend Mary as super-special more often than not ends up taking away from God in order to add to her.
To give Mary honor as though she has some sort of lasting influence is neither Biblical nor does it respect God as truly almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. Respect her for the service she gave to humanity, respect her for her faith through His earthly life and suffering. But that is where it should end.
Why didn’t God “choose someone else” at the beginning, when Eve said “No”?
>>This is refuted in the original posting.<<
Actually, not even close. It is argued, but not refuted. It is actually argued quite poorly. There are two other biblical issues that I have seen argued with equal contorting of scripture: Church of Christ arguing that musical instruments are inapropriate; homosexual priests arguing that homosexuality is not a sin.
The three all use scripture in the same way. It just proves that if your pet issue is important enough, you can - in your own mind at least - interpret scripture to say anything you want.
I think we all do it but tend to be blind to our own personal examples. But further study should cause us to alter our position as our error is discovered.
When did folks first start believing that Mary had other kids? When did the first Reformer deny that mary was a perpetual virgin? And who was it? Are there Protestants who still believe that she was a perpetual virgin?
Freegards
Obedience and consent are different concepts.
Obedience recognizes God’s will as ultimate.
Consent indicates that my decision is the choice with power.
>>You’re claiming that Mary bore no fruit.<<
Reread. He is claiming that if Mary was a perpetual virgin she bore no “marital relationship” fruit. And that IS just wrong. At least, according to:
1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
This really is NOT rocket science. The bible is VERY clear on this issue.
>>Why didn’t God “choose someone else” at the beginning, when Eve said “No”?<<
You’ll have to ask him about his plan. Looks like he got the answer he expected. There also may have been a smaller pool of people to “ask”. It is most definitely a peripheral issue though.
He did not say that. He said this:
I would relate a virgin wife to a fig tree that doesn't bear fruit.
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.