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?
Protestants understand that their leaders' statements/interpretations can be fallible. Catholics don't seem to understand this...it's foreign thinking for them.
Whether or not Mary is “Ever Virgin” may have been important during the Victorian period, but it is not now.
What IS, and always will be, important is that she is the mother of Jesus.
This is the most shallow argument in this pool.
You do know that under the Law, the Jews had to make sacrifices after the first born from each of their animals? Do you think they waited until the cow became pregnant and gave birth a second time to make sure that the other was a "first born"?
Since according to you, a firstborn is only possible when there are more than one?
I think this is less about Mary’s sex life than it is about the authority of the Roman Church. They are the original “slippery slopers”. Reject one doctrine and the whole edifice crumbles. I have more faith in the power of the Holy Spirit than that.
They know the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the weakest doctrines so that means they have to defend it even more fiercely.
Absolutely great article.
Too long to take in all at once, so I’ll comment only on the supposed debunking of “James”.
The problem with the argument is that there is nothing to tie “James the Less” to “James the brother of Jesus”. There is no indication that Jesus’ brothers were disciples. So proving that James the Less wasn’t Mary’s son doesn’t prove anything, because James the Less isn’t named as Jesus’ brother.
**Even if your position is correct, which it seems to be, what difference does it make? How are you defining virginity?**
You need to read the last paragraph above. What did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli say about it. LOL! Check it out with them.
I suggest you might be drawing the wrong conclusions from scripture. Whether Jesus had any blood siblings is unclear, as far as I can make out from the excellent exposition made. It doesn't seem to say one way or the other. But rather than that proving the case either way, it would suggest to me that the writers of the Bible thought the whole issue wasn't all that important. The emphasis in the NT seems to be more on a spiritual brotherhood/sisterhood than blood ties.
“The son of Mary” doesn’t preclude other sons. Heck, in the article itself, it points out “James the son of Alphaeus”, when we know Alphaeus had more than one son.
It’s simply common translation, and the common way of listing lineage, to use “the”, not “a”.
I also have trouble believing that someone named two of their daughters “Mary” — which would be the case if “Mary the wife of Capheus” was actually Mary’s sister. I think “Mary’s sister” was one of 4 people named, but not given a name: His mother, his mother’s sister, Mary Magdelene, and Mary fhe wife of Capheas.
I’m not quite as concerned with getting absolute proof that they were Jesus’ brothers. It seeems we need absolute proof that Mary had no children. Even if there was no mention of children, that wouldn’t prove she was otherwise childless, or a perpetual virgin.
Given that Joseph was her husband, and they lived as husband and wife for at least the 33 years up to Jesus’ death, I think someone needs to provide proof in the form of a positive statement from the Bible or historical records that Joseph was a virgin. Because the bible clearly indicates that husbands and wives are supposed to sleep together, and the bible doesn’t say Joseph had a concubine, another wife, or was an adulterer, so if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph was as well.
And THAT is so impossible to believe that you need proof for it — much more so than any incredulity about younger siblings giving counsel to an older sibling.
Heck, we aren’t even told that Joseph was given some special dispensation such that he could live his life without ever having sex.
So far as I can tell, Luthor is not God, nor do his words have devine inspiration and infallability.
Luthor was raised in the traditions of the Catholic church, so it is of no surprise that at some time in his life, he still held to many of those traditions, and carried some to his deathbed.
Why was my comment removed by the admin mod?
It was pulled due to the reference to a particular body part.
Yes, the body part that the article is directly referring to. The part that, when present, means a woman is a virgin. Are anatomically, medically correct terms now inappropriate? The word weiner has been thrown around quite frequently lately, yet I use a proper term and my comment is pulled?
True. What they seem to have trouble with, is the idea that their own statements/interpretations can be fallible.
But consider this. Sola scriptura is allegedly the sure norm of faith, is it not? Didn't Luther and Calvin follow it?
There are really only three choices:
” I do not consider what the early Church christians to have the same authority as the Scripture. “
/// even if the Scripture was 200 years later? a Bible that was selected by one man choosing which scriptures to include? and the Bible itself refers to important scripture, that is not in the Bible?
and some words in the Bible DO translate differently, in different languages?
(Like the famous painting of Moses with “horns”..)
...and, it’s impossible that Joseph had children from a previous wife?
certainly i revere the collection of scripture we call the Bible. but the early Christians, were closer to Jesus and the Apostles, and if the Bible was so essential for guidance, why did God wait so long to provide it to us?
...were those original Christians, who endured great persecution, less worthy of listening to than ministers today?
finally, if it is so very easy to admit Luther and Calvin are wrong about something they wrote so emphatically
(as per #21),
then why do you refuse to consider they may have been wrong about sola scriptura, etc. ?
especially when he wrote things like his OWN words here:
http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/04/martin-luther-quotes.php
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/luther.htm
WHO, precisely, decides which words of Luther are correct, and are not?
it makes it easy, if you get to select what you wish, to use either way to support your arguments.
(especially when the Bible itself refutes sola scriptura, a Bible that again, didn’t exist for over 200 years after Jesus? ...and 1400 years before Luther was sent to interpret it correctly for us?)
I checked out what Luther and Calvin said about this issue but they didn’t indicate that this issue is important, therefore the questions still remains: What difference does is make? What is the importance of this issue?
“What they seem to have trouble with, is the idea that their own statements/interpretations can be fallible.”
That statement is absolutely false.
Protestants only claim that each person is responsible for their own belief, not that each person claims their belief can’t be fallible.
When protestants consider any issue, they rely on any number of sources to reach their conclusion. They consider the views of previous Christians, such as Luther and Calvin, but they understand that those positions aren’t necessarily correct.
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.