Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by NYer
Q: What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible? Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
A: No.The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus. Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon...”
The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.
First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56. Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...” It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus.
Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer — in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith — then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have?
But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus — neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.
Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.
So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.
See what I mean about that 'almost biblical' thing?
Well; there is a little bit:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband.
What would Paul have thought about the Catholic teachings about Mary??
Well; I can say this is the first time I've heard it spun THIS way!
who is Immanuel, interpreted by the Holy Spirit as "God with us." Mary is the mother of Immanuel. Mary is the mother of "God with us."
What I wrote above is what the Holy Spirit inspired.
No "personal savior" is there for you to use.
Frankly, any other title given ... would be going beyond what God revealed to us.
It would then be hypocrisy to go beyond "my saviour," or "saviour of the world."
The idea that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage is as silly as it is perfectly ridiculous. If God had intended for Mary to remain a perpetual virgin, why would He have provided her with a husband? It doesn’t make an ounce of sense. I’m a firm believer in the KISS concept-—Keep It Simple Stupid. I’m also from the Sgt. Joe Friday school-—Just the facts, please. I don’t why some people are sooooooooo determined to make religion more complicated than it needs to be. The Bible and the Gospels mention that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus. Period. It stops there. And so should we. Why would anyone want to make up a theory about Mary being perpetual virgin? The idea that Mary and Joseph had a celibate marriage is perfectly absurd. It’s not what marriage is about. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is precious gift from God to be denied to no one. Certainly not Mary and Joseph. Fortunately not all Catholics including myself subscribe to this blithering nonsense. It is always better to read the Bible rather than to try to read into the Bible and develop entire ideas, dogmas, and doctrines which are simply unnecessary and not supported by the facts as we know them. It is simply wrong to rewrite the Bible or to rewrite history. I would like to emphasize not everyone in my Church does this. It might interest you to know that some Catholic dogmas such as Papal Infallibility and the idea of Mary being conceived in an Immaculate Conception came much later in Church history. In fact both dogmas were institutionalized by Pope Pius IX in the late nineteenth century. Even the draconian policy of compulsory clerical celibacy was not introduced until much later in Church history, in this case in 1123 at the First Lateran Council.
This is where your argument goes off the rails as I already commented on the use of ‘personal.’
There is absolutely no correlation between explaining the literal use of Scriptural terms and then expressions which come from them. For we see the expressions in the words used.
How you correlated the above with inferring Mary as ‘mother of God’ amazes me.
However, I’ll bite...By your inference and use of Immanuel are you comfortable giving Mary the title of “Mother of YHWH”?
I will note for the record you bring up a good point. As the liberal left uses the same tactics of labeling people racist and sexist for even addressing the specious arguments of the left. Good point.
I see a high correlation, and hypocrisy, in allowing "personal saviour" and disallowing "mother of God."
How you correlated the above with inferring Mary as ‘mother of God’ amazes me.
Is Isaiah or Matthew causing you to stumble ?
However, I’ll bite...By your inference and use of Immanuel are you comfortable giving Mary the title of “Mother of ....”?
Customarily, I'm uncomfortable with people using a name for God they cannot pronounce. I would not object to "mother of the LORD with us." Do you ? Theologically, I'm comfortable with "mother of Immanuel," mother of "God with us," " mother of God," and " mother of our LORD Jesus Christ."
“I do not know man” is present perfect tense. Just as, I do not roller skate means I don’t skate and don’t expect to start. Really, if you believe the Bible, why can’t you trust the Church which produced it to know that the Virgin Mary had a vow of perpetual virginity?
Ok, let's start with the above. Show me where I indicated using the term 'personal savior' is Biblical? I did not. I explained several times that the scriptures do not use this term. That looking at psalms, prayers and personal testimony we do see the relationship between God and man personal.
That's what I put forth. But you continue to parrot the same line.
Nope. “Abi” is not Hebrew or Arabic for “brother”
Ok, let's start with the above. Show me where I indicated using the term 'personal savior' is Biblical? I did not. I explained several times that the scriptures do not use this term. That looking at psalms, prayers and personal testimony we do see the relationship between God and man personal.
Are you explaining that "personal saviour" is unscriptural and therefore disallowed, or that even though it is not in scripture, it is scriptural and allowed ?
I have already demonstrated from Isaiah and Matthew many times that Mary is the mother of "God with us." There is no credible reason to allow "personal saviour" and disallow "mother of God."
Hello!!
The bible is replete with instances of your wonderful church teaching ERROR!
Why trust it in what it teaches?
I don't care what the bible says is normal for married folks: I ain't about to change my mind from what I've been so thoroughly taught!
There is no credible reason to allow "mother of God" and disallow "personal saviour".
Yet there can be systematic, pervasive bias in certain communities that shapes the perceptions and interpretations of scripture and people. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed.
You have not shown that Jesus was obligated to turn over care of Mary to His brothers rather than to a close friend.
Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus.
The fact that Jesus honored His mother and made provisions for her is more important than if He followed some rabbinical guidelines (which you haven't shown existed anyway nor shown to be binding on the actions of Jesus).
I have and I do. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
1 Timothy 5 makes the point that the Church shouldn't have to take care of a widow if the family can. Mary wasn't a "widow indeed" or "truly a widow" (depending on the translation) because she had been provided for by her son when He assigned her care to John. Presumably, Mary was not going to become dependent on the Church because of the care of John.
You seem to entirely miss the point. The Apostle, thoroughly steeped in Torah, now binds the Jews and Gentiles in the holy catholic apostolic church in laws to care for their families or become infidels. Did you imagine this was a Moslem word ? That the Apostle made such a strong law argues it came straight from the righteousness of Torah and every righteous Jew knew this to be correct; the Gentiles, however, needed instruction in righteousness that they had not obtained from their mothers', as had Timothy from his ema and Savta (Jewish mother and grandmother).
I think you missed quite a bit from what I posted. In summary, "personal Lord and Savior" two of three is in Scriptures. Lord and Savior is most accurate. I stated the 'personal' is not found. I then pointed out that we have evidence of prayers, psalms, and even lamentations which show a personal outpouring of the heart towards God. People of faith in the Scriptures use "my" when referring to God. "My Lord and My God" (Thomas). That is a personal affirmation. I then concluded that 'no' the actual term 'personal' was not to be found. I in no way argued such use as 'Biblical.' When some street evangelists come up to me on a bus or street corner and don't know me, some ask "Is Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior." I respond 'yes Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." They usually get the hint.
I have already demonstrated from Isaiah and Matthew many times that Mary is the mother of "God with us."
And based on the above statement I asked "are you comfortable calling Mary the "mother of YHWH?" Which you did not answer. For the scriptures you provided are evidence of the Deity of the Son of God Jesus Christ. Stretching a title for Mary from those Scriptures is wresting the text as no one in NT addressed her as such.
Not maybe.
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.