Brothers of Christ for Mickey

[NDfan]

Something just poped into my head. See if this makes sense.

Would Jesus’s brothers and sisters have known about the virgin birth? I would say that, yes, at some point they would. If they knew how he was conceived and that he was NOT the son of Joseph, why would they not believe?

There is something problematic to me about saying that they were not believers. I can’t put my finger on it, but it just doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

Wow that’s a great point. You know Ralph I don’t think I ever thought of that. Even if they were just cousins they would still have to have heard about this great miracle of Christ’s virgin birth. Perhaps they didn’t believe it really happened and just thought Jesus was the son of both Joseph and Mary.

But then again Mary’s relatives would have to have been there. Perhaps they never believed Mary when she told them how she conceived. They may have felt that she concealed the identity of the individual and that Joseph just really wanted to be with her. The passion of the Christ depicts this very interestingly. Not sure if you are a fan of that movie. But when they leave to go to Bethlehem because of the census, the towns people and what appears to be relatives almost can’t look at them. Joseph says a classic line that of course we don’t see in scripture but it’s quite fitting. “They’re going to miss us”. Being sarcastic of course.

But you’re right something doesn’t quite fit. Like a piece of the puzzle is missing. Maybe not being believers refers to the whole thing. The virgin birth, who Jesus was etc. Maybe they just rejected the whole thing like so many people do today.

 

[fbl9]

FBL I’m sure you know I would say no we wouldn’t. It seems you are trying to make the point that Joseph would somehow be violating GOD by having marital relations with Mary his wife. Again I’m sticking strictly to the text. My goal is not to prove anyone as being right or wrong. No one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt either way. My initial proposal was a thorough investigation of the text to see if anything can be gleaned either way. What we find is that there is plenty of support for Mary and Joseph having a normal marriage after Christ was born. Joseph received permission from GOD to proceed with the marriage.

What starts to happen on these threads is folks on both sides will start to throw their own hypotheses out to try and prove their case. I’m staying strictly with the text and taking it back to the original language to see what exactly it is stating.

I apologize if my post offended you ND…of course i know you wouldn’t…the reason for not?is out of reverence.correct?
We know every detail is not in scripture,and that is what we are discussing here.
Just looking at the last part here.to my mind it seems incorrect to say God gave permission,rather He told Joseph to take Mary as his wife.
Not saying he would be violating God,Mary isn’t God,but she is highly favored by God.Which would be a good enough reason for any upright man to approach her with the utmost respect.

 

[NDfan]

I apologize if my post offended you ND…of course i know you wouldn’t…the reason for not?is out of reverence.correct?
We know every detail is not in scripture,and that is what we are discussing here.
Just looking at the last part here.to my mind it seems incorrect to say God gave permission,rather He told Joseph to take Mary as his wife.
Not saying he would be violating God,Mary isn’t God,but she is highly favored by God.Which would be a good enough reason for any upright man to approach her with the utmost respect.

FBL I didn’t take offense. I like chatting with you

I agree with you 100%. I guess the question I would have is that marital relations is sacred in a marriage. That’s how GOD creates children. Bringing a man and woman together. Accept for the virgin birth.

Somehow it seems that folks view Joseph and Mary having sex as being disrespectful on Joseph’s part. Or in general. I’m sure Joseph treated Mary with the utmost respect. Look how he acted when he thought she cheated.

As far as GOD giving him permission. I would tend to agree with you but remember the language the Angel used. Gabriel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So maybe it wasn’t outright permission per se. But in the Jewish culture the only way Joseph could have had any sexual contact with Mary in a marriage is by seeking the permission of the individual Mary would have been with. In this case Gabriel is almost telling him not to worry the marriage can move forward because the child is from the Holy Spirit. So somehow this plays a significant part in them moving forward with the wedding.

I said it was kind of 2 fold. One that Mary was still a virgin and had not been defiled by another man. And 2 that even though Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit GOD still blessed them with getting married. Why would GOD deny something that HE deems sacred and not allow them to consummate the marriage? Verse 18 of Matthew 1 shows this to be the expectation. I hope you read my other posts. I answered many questions you posed to CKemson I think is the handle. His name is Chip.

PEACE

 

[fbl9]

FBL I didn’t take offense. I like chatting with you

I agree with you 100%. I guess the question I would have is that marital relations is sacred in a marriage. That’s how GOD creates children. Bringing a man and woman together. Accept for the virgin birth.

Somehow it seems that folks view Joseph and Mary having sex as being disrespectful on Joseph’s part. Or in general. I’m sure Joseph treated Mary with the utmost respect. Look how he acted when he thought she cheated.

As far as GOD giving him permission. I would tend to agree with you but remember the language the Angel used. Gabriel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So maybe it wasn’t outright permission per se. But in the Jewish culture the only way Joseph could have had any sexual contact with Mary in a marriage is by seeking the permission of the individual Mary would have been with. In this case Gabriel is almost telling him not to worry the marriage can move forward because the child is from the Holy Spirit. So somehow this plays a significant part in them moving forward with the wedding.

I said it was kind of 2 fold. One that Mary was still a virgin and had not been defiled by another man. And 2 that even though Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit GOD still blessed them with getting married. Why would GOD deny something that HE deems sacred and not allow them to consummate the marriage? Verse 18 of Matthew 1 shows this to be the expectation. I hope you read my other posts. I answered many questions you posed to CKemson I think is the handle. His name is Chip.

PEACE

Good
Given the passion involved in the marital embrace and my past is perhaps why i take the idea of Mary and Joseph"together" as not quite seeming “right”…
To the jewish mind then marriage means to have marital relations?or am i just not getting something here.be back later or tommorrow.

 

[mardukm]

Something just poped into my head. See if this makes sense.

Even your grammatical mistakes reflect that you are Catholic!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Actually the wording used in the fragment suggests medieval times. The only reason it’s attributed to Papias is because the word Papia is written in the margin. It was believed to be originally part of a dictionary.

Like I said, no one has proven that the contents are not actually from Papias. Sure they were contained in a dictionary. The statements must have come from a Tradition in the Church, right? I mean Eusebius records many facts in his history. Would it be valid to say that he just made everything up at the time he wrote them?

Well we haven’t established this work was from Papias.

No one has denied it, not even the ANF writers.

And what he writes is no different than what the RCC has done to try and explain the relationship.

Which would indicate the truth of the Catholic position.

The problem with saying cousin is that the Greek uses Adelphos/Adelphoi. No we both know that means literal blood brother and sister, but also can be used to refer to countrymen, or fellow believers in Christ. But here’s the interesting thing you have to answer. Why doesn’t the Greek use the word for cousin which is suggenes? It’s used other places to refer to cousins in the NT.

Because they could have been half-brothers (which I think is the more plausible interpretation). Some Traditions claim they were half-brothers (from a previous marriage by Joseph). Some say they were cousins. But the common thread in all the Traditions is that they were NOT the Blessed Virgin’s own biological children.

Also why do the Gospel writers always say Jesus’ mother and his brothers and sisters in that format. The brothers and sisters are always listed as being with Mary Jesus mother. If they weren’t his half brothers from Joseph and Mary then they sure traveled with Mary Jesus’ mother alot.

If they were half-brothers, they would have been part of the same family. I don’t see anything peculiar about that.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever heard of the word desposyni? This was a term used to refer to Jesus blood relatives as late as the 4th century. Ever read Eusebius commentary on Hegesippus who existed in the early 2nd century? To quote one item from this:

“…There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.”

I don’t know. It seems to me the passage is only distinguishing between spiritual brotherhood versus brotherhood “according to the flesh.” Brotherhood “according to the flesh” could easily mean cousins or half-brothers.

Yes did I miss one? What was it? Be back shortly.

It’s post #44 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4637159&postcount=44

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ralphinal]

Even your grammatical mistakes reflect that you are Catholic!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

I have never claimed to be able to spell. In fact, I claim that I am a poor speller. But this must be a sign that I am right

 

[ralphinal]

Wow that’s a great point. You know Ralph I don’t think I ever thought of that. Even if they were just cousins they would still have to have heard about this great miracle of Christ’s virgin birth. Perhaps they didn’t believe it really happened and just thought Jesus was the son of both Joseph and Mary.

Possible, but I might have an answer to that…

But then again Mary’s relatives would have to have been there. Perhaps they never believed Mary when she told them how she conceived. They may have felt that she concealed the identity of the individual and that Joseph just really wanted to be with her. The passion of the Christ depicts this very interestingly. Not sure if you are a fan of that movie. But when they leave to go to Bethlehem because of the census, the towns people and what appears to be relatives almost can’t look at them. Joseph says a classic line that of course we don’t see in scripture but it’s quite fitting. “They’re going to miss us”. Being sarcastic of course.

Was that in the Passion or in the Nativity movie? I love the Passion, but I do not recall that. It has been a while. It is too intense for regular veiwing. Again, I may have the solution…

But you’re right something doesn’t quite fit. Like a piece of the puzzle is missing. Maybe not being believers refers to the whole thing. The virgin birth, who Jesus was etc. Maybe they just rejected the whole thing like so many people do today.

We know that Joseph is called an upright man in Scriptures, which is not common. Mary is called full of Grace, again, not common. I would tend to think that their holiness would have been noticed by others. More than likely, assuming they told anyone outside of the immediate family, it would be something that is doubted but not denied. Perhaps others were confused about how two people so pious could tell such things. Elizabeth must have known, and John as well.

It is possible that his own kin did not accept him. However, it still really doesn’t sit well.

If we look at the logic behind the Immaculate conception and the Assumption, we see making provisions for Jesus’s mother. Even if you do not accept the dogmas, there is a human logic in saying that Jesus would want his own mother to make it to heaven and not to suffer on earth, beyond that pain of watching him suffer. That said, why would he not make provisions for other blood kin? Without denying free-will, does it not make sense that those closest to Jesus would be among the elect?

 

[Canto]

The Priests had to refrain from intimacy during their time of service, but not after. So if scripture said that the priests shall refrain from intimacy **until ** after their time of service would you say they never had intimacy? Of course not. A time frame is implied here.

The point I was making was that there were instances where people refrained from sex. If I was a woman and God popped out of my womb I don’t know that I’d ever have sex.

It may be common for married people to have sex - I’m not married - but it is not common for a married or betrothed woman to give birth to God in the flesh.

According to you Canto. But if we read scripture we find the Angel told Joseph to continue with the marriage.

He never explicitly said that he MUST have sex with Mary.

Canto this is such an old argument that holds no water.

As I noted in Matthew’s Gospel Christ said he would be with us UNTIL the end of time. This does not mean that when the end of time comes he will no longer be with us.

So when Joseph knew her not UNTIL… it does not definitivly imply that they had sex. The Greek deals with the time up to the birth of Christ not after.

St John Chrysostom said so, so did Martin Luther, the scholars of New American Bible and even the Study NIV bible.

Luke 1:80 says that John the Bapitst was in the wilderness “until the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Does this mean that once he appeared he left the wilderness?

Luke 7:24 says "When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John. ‘What did you go out to the wilderness to see, a reed swayed by the wind?’

A great example is in matthew 18:30 which I presented to FBL and I quote:

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till (heos hou) he should pay the debt.

The word heos hou used there is the same term used in Matthew 1:25. At one time protestants tried to argue that heos hou always meant reversal but it simply does not. It depends on the context of the verse. In this example we see that the man is jailed until he pays his debt. Using Everet’s logic the man would never get out of jail even after he paid his debt. That’s just not true…

The verse by itslef does not imply that he would pay the debt

Who can repay a debt while in prison? He made it impossible for his fellow slave.

 

[NDfan]

Good
Given the passion involved in the marital embrace and my past is perhaps why i take the idea of Mary and Joseph"together" as not quite seeming “right”…
To the jewish mind then marriage means to have marital relations?or am i just not getting something here.be back later or tommorrow.

FBL good question. The Jewish Marriage is completed upon consummation or considered complete and has marital relations as part of it. The intent was to bring forth children. This is chupah which if you’ve ever been to a Jewish wedding is the canopy the couple exchanges vows under. This is a symbol of the man’s house and represents the couple finally coming together. Of course in old times the couple would hold chupah right in the man’s house and then the couple would consummate the marriage immediately after. Usually the sheets would be shown to prove the virginity of the wife. Marrying a virgin was expected in scripture. That’s why the verse of Gabriel telling Joseph Christ was from the Holy Spirit was so key. It meant that Mary was still going to be a virgin when they married.

Technically a woman who is espoused to a man is considered married in the Jewish culture. She will often say my husband. If you refer this back to the conversation Mary has with Gabriel we can get this from the scripture. When Mary asks how she will conceive because she knows not a man. The greek used for man is aner. Aner was an affectionate term a woman used to refer to her husband. So if you speak to a married woman and she says “oh my man just got home from work”. We know she is referring to her husband. So in Luke it appears Mary is saying how can this be I have not had marital relations with my husband.

Now of course there are exceptions. If a woman takes a vow and her father does not refute it then she of course would be pledged to GOD. If the woman marries and her husband does not refute the vow then of course the vow stands. But Matthew does not present it that way. If Mary would have become pregnant under her vow than she would have been accountable to the Temple Priests as this was a great offense. But we read nothing of this in Matthew as he presents Mary as violating her contract of marriage which was more of a violation to Joseph.

 

[fbl9]

FBL good question. The Jewish Marriage is completed upon consummation or considered complete and has marital relations as part of it. The intent was to bring forth children. This is chupah which if you’ve ever been to a Jewish wedding is the canopy the couple exchanges vows under. This is a symbol of the man’s house and represents the couple finally coming together. Of course in old times the couple would hold chupah right in the man’s house and then the couple would consummate the marriage immediately after. Usually the sheets would be shown to prove the virginity of the wife. Marrying a virgin was expected in scripture. That’s why the verse of Gabriel telling Joseph Christ was from the Holy Spirit was so key. It meant that Mary was still going to be a virgin when they married.

Technically a woman who is espoused to a man is considered married in the Jewish culture. She will often say my husband. If you refer this back to the conversation Mary has with Gabriel we can get this from the scripture. When Mary asks how she will conceive because she knows not a man. The greek used for man is aner. Aner was an affectionate term a woman used to refer to her husband. So if you speak to a married woman and she says “oh my man just got home from work”. We know she is referring to her husband. So in Luke it appears Mary is saying how can this be I have not had marital relations with my husband.

Now of course there are exceptions. If a woman takes a vow and her father does not refute it then she of course would be pledged to GOD. If the woman marries and her husband does not refute the vow then of course the vow stands. But Matthew does not present it that way. If Mary would have become pregnant under her vow than she would have been accountable to the Temple Priests as this was a great offense. But we read nothing of this in Matthew as he presents Mary as violating her contract of marriage which was more of a violation to Joseph.

Thanks:thumbsup: For some reason this seems familular as a catholic teaching in regards to marriage to me:shrug:
ND you you wrote earlier that the reason Joseph was going to put Mary away privately,was because he had a deep affection for her…Could be that he was also wanting to protect her form the Temple priests?

 

[fbl9]

St. Matthew 2:21"So he arose and took the child and his mother,ands went into the land of Isreal"…There is no mention of other children and from what is wrote it would have at least two yrs…

 

[ckempston]

St. Matthew 2:21"So he arose and took the child and his mother,ands went into the land of Isreal"…There is no mention of other children and from what is wrote it would have at least two yrs…

Easy answer. One, I’d have a hard time assigning an exact time frame. Two, it’s not hard to believe that two pious Jews would be reluctant to have a child in Egypt, as they would not be able to meet their obligations for sacrifices and cleansing, etc. Maybe they used NFP.

 

[fbl9]

Easy answer. One, I’d have a hard time assigning an exact time frame. Two, it’s not hard to believe that two pious Jews would be reluctant to have a child in Egypt, as they would not be able to meet their obligations for sacrifices and cleansing, etc. Maybe they used NFP.

Why did the Isrealites have divorce?God allowed it because these are a stiff necked people…To me that’s what nfp is like.I don’t support or endorse this (nfp).So you are thus saying that these two Jews had yet to been “offically” married all the time they spent in Eygypt…

 

[mardukm]

Do any of my Protestant brethren have any comments on my post#86?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Even more damaging is the fact that Luke, who refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, uses the word “cousin” to describe Mary’s relationship with Elizabeth. That Luke was familiar with a word for near-relative, made use of it, but still referred to Jesus’ so-called “cousins” as “brothers” makes the argument for them being other children of Mary and Joseph all the more likely.

Suggenes - near kin (Luke 1 to describe Mary/Elizabeth relationship)
Anepsios - cousin (Col 4:10 by Paul)
Adelphos - brother (James, the brother of the Lord)
Adelphe - sister (your brothers and sisters are looking for you)

Lukes Gospel does no damage to the blessed Virgin Mary, only your personal view of understanding Scripture and apostolic teaching gets revealed.

Luke was a Doctor and a Gentile, who spoke and wrote very good Greek which has a word for cousin. Many of the Gospel parallels were transcribed from the earliest recorded Jesus accounts from a document of “Q” which has some relation to the Gospel of Mark which recorded in Aramaic which had no word for cousin, just brothers was used to relate one to one anothers tribe.

This may help you understand a little about the recording of the Gospels, and how much care was taken not to change anything about them, thus you have Luke recording in Greek, from an Aramaic document which has no word for “cousin” only “brothers”. If you noticed Luke was not an eyewitness account of Jesus. Luke was a disciple of Paul. Who had access to the many eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry. What Luke possibly did not get the living eyewitness account of Jesus, Luke recorded from the document of “Q”, thus you have the word “cousin” and “brothers” being used. This Gospel of Luke does not in any way support Mary gave birth to more than one Son, or that she engaged in marital affairs with Joseph.

This is why Apostolic Sacard Tradition is so important to understanding Catholicism from the first century eyewitness accounts, because the Catholic church was there and is still here holding to these apostolic christian belief’s. Which are not visible to the reader, but to the spirit all these mysteries of God get revealed perfectly. For the natural person cannot accept the spiritual realities revealed by God in the Spirit. But the Spiritual person has the mind of Christ.

 

[Mickey]

The point of M 1:25 is not to confirm Mary’s perpetual virginity, but to confirm that she was indeed a virgin at the time of her delivery of Christ. This was to keep in line with the prophecy.

Then you should not use it proclaim that she did not remain a virgin.

 

[Mickey]

Which would indicate the truth of the Catholic position.

And Orthodox.

Because they could have been half-brothers (which I think is the more plausible interpretation). Some Traditions claim they were half-brothers (from a previous marriage by Joseph).

That is the Orthodox Tradition.

 

[Mickey]

As I noted in Matthew’s Gospel Christ said he would be with us UNTIL the end of time. This does not mean that when the end of time comes he will no longer be with us.

So when Joseph knew her not UNTIL… it does not definitivly imply that they had sex. The Greek deals with the time up to the birth of Christ not after.

St John Chrysostom said so, so did Martin Luther, the scholars of New American Bible and even the Study NIV bible.

Luke 1:80 says that John the Bapitst was in the wilderness “until the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Does this mean that once he appeared he left the wilderness?

Yes. There are many examples of the word “until” being used in a different way. The protestant “until argument” does not hold water.

 

[ckempston]

Lukes Gospel does no damage to the blessed Virgin Mary, only your personal view of understanding Scripture and apostolic teaching gets revealed.

You’re wrong.

Luke was a Doctor and a Gentile, who spoke and wrote very good Greek which has a word for cousin. Many of the Gospel parallels were transcribed from the earliest recorded Jesus accounts from a document of “Q” which has some relation to the Gospel of Mark which recorded in Aramaic which had no word for cousin, just brothers was used to relate one to one anothers tribe.

The existence of Q is disputable at best, and considering it’s a popular theory among people who disbelieve in the historical Jesus, I’d watch myself in appealing to its authority (if it even exists).

This may help you understand a little about the recording of the Gospels, and how much care was taken not to change anything about them, thus you have Luke recording in Greek, from an Aramaic document which has no word for “cousin” only “brothers”. If you noticed Luke was not an eyewitness account of Jesus. Luke was a disciple of Paul. Who had access to the many eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry. What Luke possibly did not get the living eyewitness account of Jesus, Luke recorded from the document of “Q”, thus you have the word “cousin” and “brothers” being used. This Gospel of Luke does not in any way support Mary gave birth to more than one Son, or that she engaged in marital affairs with Joseph.

Wrong. Luke used “cousin” to describe Mary’s loose kinship with Elizabeth. He would have used the same for Jesus’ brothers, if they were indeed simply near kin.

This is why Apostolic Sacard Tradition is so important to understanding Catholicism from the first century eyewitness accounts, because the Catholic church was there and is still here holding to these apostolic christian belief’s. Which are not visible to the reader, but to the spirit all these mysteries of God get revealed perfectly. For the natural person cannot accept the spiritual realities revealed by God in the Spirit. But the Spiritual person has the mind of Christ.

There is no Apostolic Tradition that says Mary was ever-virgin. It was a later invention. If it was Apostolic it would be in the New Testament, or you would see it mentioned in the first, or early second century.