Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 05/22/2017 3:39:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:

childishness



Skip to comments.

Brothers and Sisters?
OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 05/13/2017 6:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; consummatemarriage; godsblessing; holymatrimony; husbandandwife; marriage; virginbirthfulfilled; vows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: aMorePerfectUnion
"This isn’t in Scripture, nor is there evidence it was taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 ad. "

I reckon you're just trying to be brief here, but you haven't even considered evidence. You can't say there "isn't evidence" simply because you're unaware of it or fail to deal with it.

The same generations of Christians (AD 100 - 300) who believed in the ever-virginity of Mary are the ones who preserved, canonized and handed on the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred. There's nothing in the Bible about which books are supposed to be Scripture; there's no Table of Contents; there's no signatures on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: so as far as the text goes, they're anonymous. (How do you know who wrote them?) Nor is there evidence that the whole 27 books of the NT were "taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 AD."

Except... EXCEPT that we know this from the history of the Church: it was the Fathers, the Synods, the Councils, the --- yes --- extra-Biblical writings and the Church authorities which "canonized" our sacred canon of Scripture.

You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.

401 posted on 05/19/2017 6:02:33 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Mary’s is the “Seed of the Woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.

Hebrew law states that an adopted child has all the same inheritance rights as a blood born child; God knows what He is doing and He knows what He wrote in the Law and the Prophets about Jesus.

This whole thread is nuts. Jesus had brothers. There is no “permanent virgin zone” for Mary on some supernatural level; else-wise why would Mary have been waiting in the Upper Room for Pentecost to fall, and the Spirit be poured out upon her?

Mary awaited pouring out of God’s spirit as per the Prophet Joel (as Peter quotes) because she was the same as you and me and every other person God chooses out of the world to be His.

I love Catholics but hate all the tacked-on aerie-fairy-Mary-tales.


402 posted on 05/19/2017 6:05:44 PM PDT by Sontagged (Lord Jesus: please expose, unveil and then frogmarch Your enemies behind You as You've promised...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

(On iPhone-pardon brevity)

Word games. There is ZERO evidence that directly ties this belief to any Apostle and ZERO evidence in Scripture.

Zero + Zero = Zero

“You can’t reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It’s really as simple as that.”

It’s really as “red herring” as that. The canon was examined and recognized later, after removing erroneous books.

Mary’s ongoing virginity has no Apostolic root, or you would have posted SCRIPTURE or other actual evidence from 100 ad, instead of reverting to belief in later generations.


403 posted on 05/19/2017 6:10:20 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Ah, yes! Of course she understood how to make babies. That's the point.

She was a married woman. So were Sarah, Hannah, and Samson's mothers: married women. If Mary knew she would shortly be having sex with Joseph, if this was expected to be the natural course of things, there wouldn't have been any initial perplexity about where this promised baby in the unspecified future (as yet unconceived) was going to come from.

Look at it closely. You'll notice she was perplexed BEFORE she was told that the child would be the Son of the Most High. As far as Mary knew at that moment, it was a promised natural baby in the natural manner.

Like... WHAT? Me, have a baby? Sometime in the future? How would that happen?

404 posted on 05/19/2017 6:10:49 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Easy. The verse prior to that where Matthew says, "before they came together*.
But I suppose that since it doesn't say it in words you approve of, like *Then they had sex*, it didn't happen, right?

Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

That passage stands out to me as having a very important reason for being there. "Before they came together.", says both that Jesus was not from the consummation of marriage between Mary and Joseph as well as it being a NORMAL marriage where "coming together" (i.e., consummation (AKA...sexual intercourse) was expected in due time. It negates any idea that their marriage was out of the ordinary definition of the term with the Jewish customs of a betrothal period.

405 posted on 05/19/2017 6:13:25 PM PDT by boatbums (Authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Call no man father


406 posted on 05/19/2017 7:05:46 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
Catholics (and I include Greek Catholics/Orthodox) have always believed Mary is blessed and Theotokos, and had no physical children other than Jesus who is Immanuel. Mary remained a virgin.

And the RIGHT to an abortion is found in the Constitution by using the same logic.

407 posted on 05/19/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Look at it closely. You'll notice she was perplexed BEFORE she was told that the child would be the Son of the Most High. As far as Mary knew at that moment, it was a promised natural baby in the natural manner.

Perhaps you're not as familiar with the account as you need to be.

26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

29But she was very perplexed at

this statement,

and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Luke 1:28-34 NASB

408 posted on 05/19/2017 7:09:09 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Sontagged
I love Catholics but hate all the tacked-on aerie-fairy-Mary-tales.

I agree sir, and I am an ex Catholic. I no longer accept the fairy tales either. 😀

409 posted on 05/19/2017 7:14:03 PM PDT by Mark17 (Genesis chapter 1 verse 1. In the beginning GOD....And the rest, as they say, is history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Except... EXCEPT that we know this from the history of the Church: it was the Fathers, the Synods, the Councils, the --- yes --- extra-Biblical writings and the Church authorities which "canonized" our sacred canon of Scripture.

More false teachings on your part. .

By 170 AD the 27 books of the NT were accepted by the ekklesia.

Rome only recognized its canon at Trent around 1546 AD....some 1376 years after the ekklesia had already done so. Roman Catholics were a bit late to the party.

You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.

Yes you can.

410 posted on 05/19/2017 7:16:24 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Ignoring everything that supports the claim is not a persuasive strategy.

CLAIMING a bunch of assertions of unrelated things being linked together is no way to establish doctrine.

411 posted on 05/19/2017 7:16:52 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Mary, who was well aware of all of this history, nevertheless professes herself troubled and perplexed as to how this promised son could ever be engendered in her. Why would she not simply suppose that she'd get pregnant with her husband, just like the other holy mothers in Israel got pregnant with their husbands?

Well; considering what she was TOLD...

 

 

Luke 1:26-38    Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:

37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.

38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

 

Mary already was troubled by the angel from the get-go.  Then she hears some wild sounding prediction in verse 32. 

And you are expecting her to think clearly at this point in time and ask RATIONAL questions of the angel?

412 posted on 05/19/2017 7:19:06 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
In Hebrew, the term “brothers” has very wide kinship and social breadth.

It's just too bad that NONE of the translators of the NT's differing versions actually KNEW this 'FACT'.

They ALL seemed to think that the English word BROTHER would be the best choice; considering the context.

413 posted on 05/19/2017 7:22:10 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The same generations of Christians (AD 100 - 300) who believed in the ever-virginity of Mary are the ones who preserved, canonized and handed on the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred.

The same folks who were linked to the seven CATHOLIC churches in Asia that yet another angel told john to write to?

414 posted on 05/19/2017 7:24:58 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
... the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred.

Ha ha HA!!

Call no man father!

415 posted on 05/19/2017 7:25:33 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

It’s as if Catholics read, or are told about, a completely different text than what everyone else reads.


416 posted on 05/19/2017 7:28:32 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
WHAT? Me, have a baby? Sometime in the future? How would that happen?

Sounds like a PROPER response...

...unless you've some kind of a SECRET pact with your 'husband' to NOT have any sexual relations at ALL in the future.


WHAT? Me, have a baby? Sometime in the future? How would that happen since me and Joe ain't gonna be doing NOTHING like that!!!

417 posted on 05/19/2017 7:28:34 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

You have an amazing ability to expose foolishness in Catholic reasoning in such succinct postings! Sad that the apologist5s doing satan’s dirty work cannot see the humor.


418 posted on 05/19/2017 7:57:07 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensational perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Certified heresy-free.


419 posted on 05/19/2017 8:03:15 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Certified heresy-free.

I'm sure that makes all of us feel much better. Yes...sarcasm.

420 posted on 05/19/2017 8:12:24 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 1,061-1,073 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson