Attack On Mary's Virginity

[Dark_Warrior]

A friend of mine is currently in a debate with a Protestant. The Protestant is attacking the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so of course they are debating over the word “brothers,” and “cousins.”

In the last response the Protestant seemed to claim something good:

"if the greek word adelphos is used for cousins/relatives in the new testament then we should see examples of it right? however we do not, why?? And if your argument was true then we would not see the use of the words (suggenis) relative or (anepsios) cousin in the N T, however we do see them many times proving your argument is nothing more than a flawed assumption based on ignorance to scripture. in the N T the word (adelphos) always means brother and cousin always means cousin. also just like in the English brother can be used in a spiritual sense (ie brothers in Christ) however Scripture is clear mark 6;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?" how rome got cousins from this verse is unclear, however why they got cousins is very clear. Also your argument does not explain why luke a greek (not jew) who wrote perfect greek called them JESUS brothers even after he used the word relative 7 times in the same gospel."

Personally, I cannot advice anything, although I’m not a debater either. Are there answers for this?

Now before anyone says it, they already went over the usage of “brother” in the Old Testament, but the Protestant is claiming that since both the words for cousins and brothers are used in the New Testament then they should mean what they say, otherwise why not just continuously use “brother?”

And that Luke was far from Jewish custom and yet called Jesus’ kin “brothers” and yet uses the word “relative” in other places.

What would some of you say? Any advice?

 

[maximus]

Hi,

This topic has been covered in many threads, I even started one forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=419159 here, there are also several helpful article here on on Catholic.com. The original Protestants Luther & Calvin did not believe that Christ had maternal siblings. It’s a rather new position driven by the need of some to attack the church’s honoring of Mary. To me Jesus having maternal siblings puts in doubt his divine status.

God Bless,

 

[Bob4BVM]

Oh no, here we go AGAIN !!!

I’ll just offer a question, and then a statement:]

Question:
Ask the Protestant to tell you WHY he feels this need to ‘disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity’ ? …Why anyone would even want to escapes me. No Protestant has ever given me an answer to this. Too bad they don’t realize she is THEIR mother, too !!!

Statement
Originally posted by “James”, On Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, in another thread.
This is SO good I couldn’t resist stealing it.
Forget all the ‘brother-cousin-sister’ acrobatics, if this does not put the issue to bed, nothing will. The best “proof” you’ll ever see on this. Thx again “James” !
Read on and enjoy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cf Matthew:
Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.

Let us put ourselves in Joseph’s sandals for a bit.
Joseph is an upright man
Joseph is visited by an Angel of the Lord and told how Mary conceived
Joseph believed this Angel and Took Mary into His house as wife
Joseph later learns, at Jesus Birth, that Angels announced the Birth of The Messiah to the shepards. (Luke 2:11-19)
Joseph learns too of the Star that led the Wise Men seeking the birth of the new King and bringing expensive gifts.
Joseph also witnesses the Prophesies of Simion and Anna at the Presentation.

Now - think for a moment. Who among us, if we were Joesph, would dare to engage in intercourse with the mother of the Messiah - The betrothed of the Holy Spirit?
Is there any male here in this discussion who thinks that they, if put in Josephs position, would choose to EVER have intercourse with the Mother of - “The Son of the Living God”?

To me the perpetual virginity of Mary requires no great deep theological discussion no parsing of words or determining exact definitions of three or four different languages and/or translations or any other theological gymnastics. It only requires placing oneself in Joseph’s place and examining things through his eyes. If you do that, I suspect you will very quickly realize that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
Peace
James
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Run that by your prot friend , i’d like to hear his response !

 

[Lutheranteach]

On the other hand God seems to consider marriage a holy and honorable institution. Why would he give Joseph a wife and then not allow for a marital embrace or other children? I can see both sides of the argument.

 

[Benadam]

On the other hand God seems to consider marriage a holy and honorable institution. Why would he give Joseph a wife and then not allow for a marital embrace or other children? I can see both sides of the argument.

Joseph was willing to live a life without the marital embrace to protect Mary from life on the margins of the community as an adultress,He decided on a divorce that would not appear in public.That decision initiiated the Angelic message.

 

[po18guy]

Primarily, it is a matter of perspective. Sola scripturists see the Church as derived from the bible, while Catholics see the bible as derived from the Church.

Since all scripture has undergone numerous translations between numerous languages, by numerous authors within numerous cultures over numerous generations, how can we possibly take a translation 2,000 years later and “reverse engineer” sacred history from it? Does it not make better sense to observe the beliefs and actions of the early church which then formed scripture?

This also demonstrates the classic trouble of both private interpretation of scripture as well as imposing modern meaning into imperfectly translated ancient documents.

The bible, once separated from the Church authority which compiled and canonized it, can be twisted to support anything. Saint Peter wrote of this problem even in his day (2 Peter 3:16). Neo-nazis and the KKK regularly quote scripture in support of their evil - as did the devil in tempting Christ.

 

[Good_Fella]

On the other hand God seems to consider marriage a holy and honorable institution. Why would he give Joseph a wife and then not allow for a marital embrace or other children? I can see both sides of the argument.

Because Mary was predestined to conceive and bear a child by another Person.

*"The Holy Spirit will come upon you. and the power of the Most High will **overshadow *you."
Luke 1, 35

The marriage became just a legal arrangement once the angel Gabriel announced the good news to both Mary and Joseph.

" Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets."
Matthew 5, 17

But, in any event, Mary had intended to remain a virgin all her life (cf.Lk 1:34). The divine purpose for her inclination towards a life of chastity was realized at the Annunciation.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

There is no argument.

“Rome has spoken; the dispute is at an end.”
St. Augustine [Against the Pelagians]

PAX :heaven:

 

[thistle]

A friend of mine is currently in a debate with a Protestant. The Protestant is attacking the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so of course they are debating over the word “brothers,” and “cousins.”

I had to condense your post for space.

You should point out to the Protestant that the founders of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger) all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and declared so in writing.

Luther:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Zwingli:

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Bullinger:

‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

And much later John Wesley (founder of Methodism):

“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. The meaning of words in Scripture depends in the context and the intent of the author, which is not always the same as the dictionary definition, or the useage in secular society. Scripture is a unique book, expressing many ideas not found in secular society in general. And so the meaning of words in Scripture is not always that of the dictionary definition.

For example: by sheep, Jesus means His followers; by asleep, He means that Lazarus was dead, but would rise again; by eat my flesh and drink my blook, He means the Eucharist; by the Word of God, Scripture means the Person of Jesus, not a spoken word; and Scripture is called the Word, even though it is many words. Etc.

1. Scripture is inspired and inerrant, but the dictionary is neither. Therefore, the meaning of Scripture cannot depend entirely or mainly on the dictionary definition, but on the use and meaning of the words in context as intended by the author, the Holy Spirit.
2. One theory among the Fathers of the Church is that Saint Joseph was a widower, who had children from his previous marriage, so that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were His half-siblings. (I don’t agree with this idea, though.)
3. Another possibility is that the ‘brothers’ of Jesus were not only relatives, but also disciples of Him, at the time that the Gospels were written, and so they were called brothers for that reason.
4. Jesus uses brothers to refer to all of our neighbors, even those unrelated (e.g. Mt 5:22), so the idea that brothers can only mean a male sibling in the NT is false. Because brothers and sisters was so widely used in the early Church of anyone, even non-Christians (similar to the use of neighbor to refer to anyone, even someone living far away), the Gospel writers called Jesus’ cousins brothers and sisters.

 

[Good_Fella]

A friend of mine is currently in a debate with a Protestant. The Protestant is attacking the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so of course they are debating over the word “brothers,” and “cousins.”

In the last response the Protestant seemed to claim something good:

"if the greek word adelphos is used for cousins/relatives in the new testament then we should see examples of it right? however we do not, why?? And if your argument was true then we would not see the use of the words (suggenis) relative or (anepsios) cousin in the N T, however we do see them many times proving your argument is nothing more than a flawed assumption based on ignorance to scripture. in the N T the word (adelphos) always means brother and cousin always means cousin. also just like in the English brother can be used in a spiritual sense (ie brothers in Christ) however Scripture is clear mark 6;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?" how rome got cousins from this verse is unclear, however why they got cousins is very clear. Also your argument does not explain why luke a greek (not jew) who wrote perfect greek called them JESUS brothers even after he used the word relative 7 times in the same gospel."

The actual people who raise the question in Mark 6:3 are speaking in Aramaic. There is no specific word for “cousin” in this ancient language; likewise in ancient Hebrew. The word “brother” serves as an idiomatic form of expression. (Circumlocutions are also used in the Bible: “uncle’s son”.) The author of Mark wrote his gospel in the Greek, but he preserved the form of language spoken by the Palestinian Jews at the time in his narrative. Luke does the same unless he is relating something in the voice of the narrator, since he addresses an apparent Roman official, Theophilus, in the Greek language which has a word for “cousin” (anepsios), assuming Luke had actually used this word when writing his gospel. The evangelist has the angel Gabriel using the word “cousin” or “relative”, depending on the Bible version, when referring to Elizabeth, but there is no reason why God’s messenger would adopt a Semitic idiomatic form of expression unless he tried to be less formal. As one who would take the written word literally, I would be convinced that Mary had other offspring if it were actually recorded that she gave birth to James and Joses and Simon and Judas or they were referred to as “sons of Mary”.
:heaven:

“The virginity of Mary was kept hidden from the prince of this world.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D. 110)

 

[Scoobyshme]

1. The meaning of words in Scripture depends in the context and the intent of the author, which is not always the same as the dictionary definition, or the useage in secular society. Scripture is a unique book, expressing many ideas not found in secular society in general. And so the meaning of words in Scripture is not always that of the dictionary definition.

For example: by sheep, Jesus means His followers; by asleep, He means that Lazarus was dead, but would rise again; by eat my flesh and drink my blook, He means the Eucharist; by the Word of God, Scripture means the Person of Jesus, not a spoken word; and Scripture is called the Word, even though it is many words. Etc.

1. Scripture is inspired and inerrant, but the dictionary is neither. Therefore, the meaning of Scripture cannot depend entirely or mainly on the dictionary definition, but on the use and meaning of the words in context as intended by the author, the Holy Spirit.
2. One theory among the Fathers of the Church is that Saint Joseph was a widower, who had children from his previous marriage, so that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were His half-siblings. (I don’t agree with this idea, though.)
3. Another possibility is that the ‘brothers’ of Jesus were not only relatives, but also disciples of Him, at the time that the Gospels were written, and so they were called brothers for that reason.
4. Jesus uses brothers to refer to all of our neighbors, even those unrelated (e.g. Mt 5:22), so the idea that brothers can only mean a male sibling in the NT is false. Because brothers and sisters was so widely used in the early Church of anyone, even non-Christians (similar to the use of neighbor to refer to anyone, even someone living far away), the Gospel writers called Jesus’ cousins brothers and sisters.

Ron Conte, thank you for, yet again, an informative, succinct post! Keep 'em coming and God bless!

 

[Scoobyshme]

I had to condense your post for space.

You should point out to the Protestant that the founders of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger) all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and declared so in writing.

Luther:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Zwingli:

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Bullinger:

‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

**And much later John Wesley **(founder of Methodism):

“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

thisle, excellent post!

 

[Viki63]

The argument that clinches it for me has always been that from the cross, Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother,” and to Mary, “behold your son.”
If Jesus had had any living siblings, this would have been an insult to them. Jesus had no one else to commit His mother’s care to, so He chose John, his good friend and disciple.

 

[ccolley]

Oh no, here we go AGAIN !!!

I’ll just offer a question, and then a statement:]

Question:
Ask the Protestant to tell you WHY he feels this need to ‘disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity’ ? …Why anyone would even want to escapes me. No Protestant has ever given me an answer to this. Too bad they don’t realize she is THEIR mother, too !!!

Statement
Originally posted by “James”, On Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, in another thread.
This is SO good I couldn’t resist stealing it.
Forget all the ‘brother-cousin-sister’ acrobatics, if this does not put the issue to bed, nothing will. The best “proof” you’ll ever see on this. Thx again “James” !
Read on and enjoy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cf Matthew:
Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.

Let us put ourselves in Joseph’s sandals for a bit.
Joseph is an upright man
Joseph is visited by an Angel of the Lord and told how Mary conceived
Joseph believed this Angel and Took Mary into His house as wife
Joseph later learns, at Jesus Birth, that Angels announced the Birth of The Messiah to the shepards. (Luke 2:11-19)
Joseph learns too of the Star that led the Wise Men seeking the birth of the new King and bringing expensive gifts.
Joseph also witnesses the Prophesies of Simion and Anna at the Presentation.

Now - think for a moment. Who among us, if we were Joesph, would dare to engage in intercourse with the mother of the Messiah - The betrothed of the Holy Spirit?
Is there any male here in this discussion who thinks that they, if put in Josephs position, would choose to EVER have intercourse with the Mother of - “The Son of the Living God”?

To me the perpetual virginity of Mary requires no great deep theological discussion no parsing of words or determining exact definitions of three or four different languages and/or translations or any other theological gymnastics. It only requires placing oneself in Joseph’s place and examining things through his eyes. If you do that, I suspect you will very quickly realize that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
Peace
James
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Run that by your prot friend , i’d like to hear his response !

Excellent post…and I would add that Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant…Remember what happened to the last fellow that tried to touch the Ark…he was struck down dead!
CC

 

[ccolley]

A friend of mine is currently in a debate with a Protestant. The Protestant is attacking the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so of course they are debating over the word “brothers,” and “cousins.”

In the last response the Protestant seemed to claim something good:

"if the greek word adelphos is used for cousins/relatives in the new testament then we should see examples of it right? however we do not, why?? And if your argument was true then we would not see the use of the words (suggenis) relative or (anepsios) cousin in the N T, however we do see them many times proving your argument is nothing more than a flawed assumption based on ignorance to scripture. in the N T the word (adelphos) always means brother and cousin always means cousin. also just like in the English brother can be used in a spiritual sense (ie brothers in Christ) however Scripture is clear mark 6;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?" how rome got cousins from this verse is unclear, however why they got cousins is very clear. Also your argument does not explain why luke a greek (not jew) who wrote perfect greek called them JESUS brothers even after he used the word relative 7 times in the same gospel."

Personally, I cannot advice anything, although I’m not a debater either. Are there answers for this?

Now before anyone says it, they already went over the usage of “brother” in the Old Testament, but the Protestant is claiming that since both the words for cousins and brothers are used in the New Testament then they should mean what they say, otherwise why not just continuously use “brother?”

And that Luke was far from Jewish custom and yet called Jesus’ kin “brothers” and yet uses the word “relative” in other places.

What would some of you say? Any advice?

Add up all the people in the Gospels that are supposed to be Jesus’ "brothers"and “sisters” and I think it is 20 or 30 people - Mary would have had to have been “perpetually pregnant” to have all those people. She also wouldn’t have been able to “hang out” with the disciples or follow Jesus around if she was married…she would have had her own home…
Couple that with the fact that when Jesus died he had to give her to John…a non-relative because he had NO siblings… Jesus having siblings makes absolutely NO sense given the events detailed in the Gospels.
CC
[SIGN]I love my Papal Papa! [/SIGN]

 

[Bob4BVM]

Add up all the people in the Gospels that are supposed to be Jesus’ "brothers"and “sisters” and I think it is 20 or 30 people - Mary would have had to have been “perpetually pregnant” to have all those people. She also wouldn’t have been able to “hang out” with the disciples or follow Jesus around if she was married…she would have had her own home…
Couple that with the fact that when Jesus died he had to give her to John…a non-relative because he had NO siblings… Jesus having siblings makes absolutely NO sense given the events detailed in the Gospels.
CC
[SIGN]I love my Papal Papa! [/SIGN]

Ha ! That’s great, i never thought of that. She would have had a BIG family ! MIght have been hard to find that “special son” among all those kids, even tho He was the Son of God !

Also thought of this: what did Mary & Joseph do with “all those other kids” when they left the caravan to go back to Jerusalem to search for Jesus when He was 12 ?

But no other argument closes this down like putting ourselves in Joseph’s shoes like I said in post # 3 here. Thx again to my friend James for this perspective.

 

[maximus]

Ha ! That’s great, i never thought of that. She would have had a BIG family ! MIght have been hard to find that “special son” among all those kids, even tho He was the Son of God !

Also thought of this: what did Mary & Joseph do with “all those other kids” when they left the caravan to go back to Jerusalem to search for Jesus when He was 12 ?

But no other argument closes this down like putting ourselves in Joseph’s shoes like I said in post # 3 here. Thx again to my friend James for this perspective.

Whoa! That is a very good point, is it yours originally? Only the most intransigent ant-Catholics would not stop to consider this point.

 

[Good_Fella]

Whoa! That is a very good point, is it yours originally? Only the most intransigent ant-Catholics would not stop to consider this point.

They might argue that uncle Zachariah volunteered to do the baby-sitting. I can imagine the younger siblings ecstatically screaming upon his arrival at their home: “Hey, it’s Uncle Zach!” The fun they must have had tugging at his beard. He must have taken them to the temple with him at the Pasch.

 

[maximus]

QUOTE=Good Fella;6437585]They might argue that uncle Zachariah volunteered to do the baby-sitting. I can imagine the younger siblings ecstatically screaming upon his arrival at their home: “Hey, it’s Uncle Zach!” The fun they must have had tugging at his beard. He must have taken them to the temple with him at the Pasch.

That’s hysterical!

 

[Good_Fella]

QUOTE=Good Fella;6437585]They might argue that uncle Zachariah volunteered to do the baby-sitting. I can imagine the younger siblings ecstatically screaming upon his arrival at their home: “Hey, it’s Uncle Zach!” The fun they must have had tugging at his beard. He must have taken them to the temple with him at the Pasch.

That’s hysterical!

Clopas would be an uncle in the true sense of the word with James, Joses, and Judas being our Lord’s cousins. Zachariah was married to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, so that could make him a type of uncle by his patronage. I’m sure he delighted the kids with his visits when he brought bags of sweet potato latkes and carrot tzimmes.