Posted on 06/14/2011 6:53:10 AM PDT by narses
Would you willing to try a small test, to see what happens if you try a different approach to the Scripture? It will only take a few minutes, I promise, and we'll use nothing but the Bible. It is based on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of Scripture must be done in harmony with all the other Scripture that speaks to that subject. In others words, it is ALL true. We have four Gospels, and one of the manifest blessings of that is that we can compare them, as small things in one or two can and do clarify for us what is in another. That is, of times, called Scripture interpreting Scripture.
When Protestants insist that Mary had other children, they quote these verses, among others:
Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother"
James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon - Blood Brothers of Jesus?
These verses, importantly, actually named the Lord's brothers, whereas all the others shown did not. That is why I suggest we look at these four men: James, Joses (or Joseph), Judeas (or Jude) and Simon.
First .... James and Joseph
Let's begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That's two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:
Matt 10:3: "...'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the Less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James' father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.
Now let's do serious Bible Study, and go to Strong's and the KJV (both Protestant, by the way).
http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/
Go to that link, and search for these two passages, one at a time: Matt 10:3 and John 19:25. In the first, click the 'C' icon for the Strong's Concordance, then click the Strong's number for the name Alphaeus.
Comes up 'father of James the Less'.
We knew that. Now hit the back button to start again with John 19:25. Go to the Concordance ('C' icon), then hit the number for Cleophas, and gosh: it comes up father of James the less!
In other words, Alphaeus and Cleophas are simply two forms of the same name, and that is all we had to establish. Happens a lot in Scripture (John 11:16 Thomas, who is called Didymus; Acts 13:1 Simeon who was called Niger, etc...). So, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and a woman named Mary. Right?
Now, remember when we read in Mark 15:40 where a Mary who was the mother of James the less was standing off from the Cross? Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:
John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (emphasis added)
Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the 'sister' of Our Lord's mother - Mary!
This still leaves Jude and Simon, though, of the brothers named, right? The Protestant hypothesis is still hanging on by a thread! Two of the four 'brothers' have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary!
Next ... Jude
Acts 1:13 "...James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo'tes, and Jude the brother of James..." (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:
Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James..." (emphasis added)
It is not only NOT being held up that these brothers 'may' be Our Lord's siblings, but that idea is being REFUTED by the Scripture, when one harmonizes the Gospels! We should also point out that the Scripture nowhere calls them Mary's children.
Lastly ... Simon
Oh wait! One more! There is still Simon, the fourth brother!
Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!
Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)
Mark 3:18 "Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean..." (emphasis added)
Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!
We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a 'brethren' or 'brother' of the Christ. Let's go to John's Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called 'brethren'!
Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to 'Do as He says.'
Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast..
So Simon is from Cana, and a 'brother' of the Lord! He's not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. Even here 'sister' may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
So, why do Protestants still want to convince everybody that where you read 'brothers and sisters' it is clearly intending blood siblings, in spite of what the Scripture shows?
Sisters of Christ?
We do also read about Our Lord's sisters, correct? Maybe scriptures will bail the Protestants out on this?
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (emphasis added)
If this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James the less and Joseph, and also of Salome, then Salome could be called a sister of the Christ just as her blood brothers (same mother) could be called brothers of Christ, without being a sibling, right?
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
As we can see, in every instance in which a brother or sister of Christ is named, each one can clearly be shown to be a son or daughter of someone other than the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Now that's the look from the Bible alone, and with serious respect for the word of God, not man's opinion jumping to conclusions.
Now, after you've searched the Scripture and studied it, and harmonized all the Scripture, maybe ask - why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important to the understanding of the eternal Divinity of Christ? What does it say about an important proof of His Godhead, enough that even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley all strongly proclaimed that doctrine, in the defense of Our Lord?
Homosexuality is an abonimation in Gods eyes. So, no ... I don’t support it. Did you assume that I did because I am not Catholic?
this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation
This doctrine is not a stand alone, but it is an integral piece in the mosaic of faith and salvation begun by Jesus and continuously confirmed and proclaimed by the Church, at Christ’s command. And again, it is not meant to defend Mary but her Son. And conversely, when one attacks this doctrine, one attacks not just the Church and not just Mary, but her Son. The Church ALWAYS focuses its exegesis and theology on the person of Jesus.
The Apostles did not accept Jesus as Messiah based on one thing He did or said. In fact, it was one particular thing He said that caused many to reject Him and leave Him.
Peter says in the Gospel of John, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. You are the Christ. We have come to believe that you are the Holy One of God.”
How would an infant respond to the order to fast for two or three days before their baptism?
You are clouding a relatively simple issue. You have at least one church father that provides evidence that they were not all monolithic in their beliefs.
“One may truly believe that one is merely mocking Mary and through her the Church, but in believing thus, one would be wrong.”
I’m not mocking Mary- just the distorted relationship some people have toward her.
She was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus. In that, she was blessed by God.
She was chosen by Joseph to be his wife. In that, she was blessed by God.
She raised Jesus in her maternal role. In that, she was blessed by God
She lived as a wife to Joseph. In that, she was blessed by God.
Why so insistent that they had sexual relations? Because the God they serve instituted marriage, defined it, and included the sex act as an integral part of it.
Were Joseph and Mary married or not? Was Jesus raised by a dysfunctional family that did not partake in the act that defines marriage? An act, whose absence, the Catholic Church recognizes as a qualifier for anullment (recognizing that a true marriage did not exist).
It is far more compatible with scripture that were Mary to remain ever-virgin that she would have borne Jesus out of wedlock, instead of God destroying the institution of marriage in the relationship of his mother and her husband.
Will
But, scripture and logic are always overpowered by tradition- at least when it comes to Mary
And secondly, it's not "at least one", but "only one" and lastly Tertullian wasn't a Church Father.
I assumed nothing — I don’t make personal interpretations, I asked you “.do you support that? “
You’re missing the point ... thats ok ... I think we were done several posts ago. Regards.
And I answered definitively.
Consensus Patrum overrides all individual Church Fathers, and remains so to this day. But that is why individuals who attack the Church can sometimes point to a Church Father. Origen eventually believed in the subordination of the Persons of the Trinity, universal Salvation, and a few other heresies.
Baptism is followed in the Church by Confirmation of the Holy Spirit. I don't see any fasting of infants, though. The Catechism beginning at 1213 outlines Baptism and is followed by Confirmation.
This was already discussed on this thread.
Victorinus did not believe that the brethren were Mary's. However, he also DID NOT believe in her perpetual virginity.
You correctly stated that “this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation”, but then you also said this doctrine is an integral part of salvation.....
I take issue with that, because as you noted this issue doesn’t impact salvation one way or the other. Therefore, it’s contradictory to say on the one hand it doesn’t impact salvation and on the other that it’s an integral part of salvation.
Very possible.
Notice in Mark 3:21 where Jesus' family thought he was crazy and went out to seize him.
Then a few verses later in 3:32 his mother and brothers appear and call to him but Jesus seems not to heed them and goes so far as to call those gathered around Him His "brother and sister and mother" likely because His family did not understand the message.
Also, Mary did not understand what was going on in Matt 2:48. She was astonished that Jesus had remained at the Temple. She seems to have regarded His action as a slight saying, "Son, why have you treated us so your father and I have been searching for you in great distress." The Scripture goes on to say that neither Mary or Joseph understood what she was saying to them.
Those who believe Mary to have been perfect will have difficulty believing these passages. But Mary was not perfect and, though she was blessed in having Jesus born to her, she was still fallible and had trouble understanding who He was early on.
You're implying that people believing that Mary remained a virgin forever somehow helps them come to trust in Jesus and thus obtain salvation. Conversely, that means you believe that people won't come to a true belief in Christ unless they first believe that Mary remained a virgin.
That's ridiculous. All that is required is a child-like faith in Jesus. One doesn't even have to worry whether Mary remained a virgin in order to be fully devoted to Jesus.
No, the NT Scriptures were all written before 100 AD. The early church fathers were very familiar with them, attempted to be in submission to them, and referred to them often as their authority.
It was not up to one man to choose what scriptures to include. Many men had input in what eventually became our Canon.
Jesus,s family were not his followers, including his mother until after his death and then they saw the light.
Very possible.
Notice in Mark 3:21 where Jesus’ family thought he was crazy and went out to seize him.
Then a few verses later in 3:32 his mother and brothers appear and call to him but Jesus seems not to heed them and goes so far as to call those gathered around Him His “brother and sister and mother” likely because His family did not understand the message.
Also, Mary did not understand what was going on in Matt 2:48. She was astonished that Jesus had remained at the Temple. She seems to have regarded His action as a slight saying, “Son, why have you treated us so your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” The Scripture goes on to say that neither Mary or Joseph understood what she was saying to them.
Those who believe Mary to have been perfect will have difficulty believing these passages. But Mary was not perfect and, though she was blessed in having Jesus born to her, she was still fallible and had trouble understanding who He was early on.
Some of them are pseudoepigraphic, such as 2 Peter, written as late as AD 150.
It was not up to one man to choose what scriptures to include. Many men had input in what eventually became our Canon.
We believe that God had input; a group of Catholic bishops wound up determining Canon.
Interesting point, however, we must insist that sinlessness and infallibility are two separate issues and do not have to coincide.
I do not belong to any religious order or organization either. I have read the Bible many times in various versions. The one I have relied on for the past 10 years is a translation by a Messianic Jew, Daniel Stern. If Calvin, Luther, Cronos, not-so-SoothingDave, and JohnGrace want to express an opinion or conjecture, they are totally entitled. I find that these explanations you refer to (and that I reject) are full of holes. A couple of examples are shown below (from the KJV):
Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary... 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Response: Mary is simply declaring that she is still a virgin so how can she be pregnant — She is betrothed to be married - So, how does anyone get that she was devoting her life to celibacy in service to the Lord?
Mark 6:3-Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Response: Obviously Jesus feels seriously alienated from his own family — from his own words in the 6:4.
Mark 3:31-35-There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Response: Obviously Jesus felt great rejection from his family. I don’t believe that included his mother because she knew from the Get-Go who Jesus was. If his brothers walked away from Him, not believing in Him until after the Resurrection, then it makes perfect sense that at the Cross, Jesus told the Disciple whom He loved to take Mary into his home and treat her as his own mother.
So maybe there were older siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage??? That makes no sense. There is no mention of that in the Bible. You can’t go making it up...or then you’re a heretic.....
**Jesus,s family were not his followers, including his mother**
Oh, you are so mistaken.
What are Mary’s last words in the Bible? Hint: She knew what he could do.
At the Wedding of Cana: “Do whatever he tells you.”
Yes, she definitely knew who he was. Besides that, had not Simeon prophesied to her when the baby Jesus was presented in the temple?
You do believe Holy Scripture, don’t you?
It doesn't matter, does it? Sola selectica, followed by sola scriptura, followed by sola exclusiva can produce almost every belief with Scriptural backing, as long as you make the snippets really short and arrange them like Legos.
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.