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?
The Bible doesn't say that. Joseph is not mentioned after the episode where they find Jesus in the Temple at the age of 12 years.
Because the bible clearly indicates that husbands and wives are supposed to sleep together
Well, no, not always. In fact, priests serving the Temple were prohibited from contact with their wives during the period of their service.
Think about the implications for someone who lived in daily proximity to God-in-the-flesh.
IV. Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.
Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.
Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.
Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.
John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.
John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.
Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”
Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.
Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.
Top
V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (”anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -”brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.
1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.
Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”
Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”
Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).
“There are really only three choices:
1. No, they didn’t. They were bound by tradition as much as the Pope was.
2.Yes, they did, therefore, the perpetual virginity of Mary is consistent with sola scriptura, therefore, Protestants shouldn’t lodge it as an objection to the Catholic faith
3.Sola scriptura really isn’t a sure norm of faith after all.”
You’re missing the 4th option:
Sola scriptura is appropriate for all doctrinal issues concerning salvation and holiness, but the issue of perpetual virginity doesn’t fall into that category. Therefore, Christians can disagree on topics such as this since it doesn’t impact salvation.
No - I’m saying there are lots of issues that don’t impact core fundamental issues of the Christian faith, such as salvation.
This issue is not one of those.
I guarantee you that if after the sacrifice of the firstborn calf, that was the only calf the cow ever had, the farmer would certainly note that to anyone who cared. The New Testament Gospels were written after the writers would have known whether Jesus was the one and only child born of Mary. I may be shallow in my position, but it doesn’t make me wrong. That Mary & Joseph would not have lived as husband and wife after the birth of Jesus is pure nonsense with absolutely nothing to support that contention. The only evidence to support no siblings is what Jesus said to Mary at the Cross - an unnamed disciple (John, reputedly) was charged with taking care of Mary - if there were other children, she would have lived with them - however, I believe that there was a deep schism in the family, probably after Joseph died, because they didn’t believe in Jesus until after the Resurrection.
You are entitled to your opinions, to go as deep and scholarly as you want to, but the Bible does not say what you or Cronos are saying. Cronos quotes Luther, who was a Roman Catholic who left the church due to other “add ons.” If he and others want to believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, knock yourself out — all that does is contribute to her deification, which is wrong IMHO. There was no requirement for continued virginity from God, or I think He would have mentioned that.
For that reason we have a number of additional guidelines (click on my profile page to read them.)
Among the guidelines is that potty language or references to potty language are disallowed. The same would apply to either medically correct or slang for sex related body parts.
When such a term is used by a Freeper then another often replies with a more offensive similar term and so on. So to prevent flame wars, we remove such references as quickly as we can.
The subject matter of the article then, by your standards, should cause it to be removed as well.
Thanks for the ping to this excellent article, and some really good Catholic posts.
“The subject matter of the article then, by your standards, should cause it to be removed as well.”
No it doesn’t. The word “virginity” is not offensive to anyone.
As was pointed out, we don’t know anything (biblically) about Joseph after Jesus was 12. After re-reading that scripture, it doesn’t even mention Joseph by name, just ‘his parents’. I don’t know what tradition says, but Mary could have been remarried. Perhaps a guy named ‘Cleophas’, maybe had some kids with him.
That of course assumes that Joseph lived in close proximity, something as you note the bible doesn't explicitly state.
My assumption was that if Joseph had divorced Mary during the time period covered by the Gospels, or had taken a second wife, or had died, it would have been mentioned. After Jesus died, there'd be no reason to expect Mary or Joseph to be mentioned in the bible.
It's simply logic, and not real evidence, but what we are discussing is mostly about what makes sense, not about clear factual evidence.
The discussion of a 13 or 14 year olds virginal status is offensive. That is what this discussion is about.
This is 90% about the authority of the Magisterium.
nice try, but you’ll have to keep on digging. This article is not offensive in the least.
Thanks narses, good thread, good posters.
No they don't. And this is why you seem them constantly going to the Bible to see if their own statements/interpretations measure up.
1.No, they didn't. They were bound by tradition as much as the Pope was.
Ta da! Well, you got it half right. They were bound by tradition in that all men (even Christian) are as they attempt to break free of walking in law rather than grace, but not nearly as much as the Pope.
So you agree that "first born" does not mean there must be a second born. Thanks for obliterating your own feeble argument.
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.