Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[adrift]

[s.

Now, in the present instance, the fact is simply this: There was a certain Mary, “the mother of James,” according to St. Luke; the “mother of James and Joses,” according to St. Mark; the mother of James, Joses, Jude and Simon, according to inference from St. Luke and the testimony of Eusebius; in short, the mother of those who are called the brethren of our Lord. This Mary (John xix. 25) was the wife of Cleophas or Alphous, and the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother.

It seems very strange to me that parents would name 2 of their living daughters with the same name: Mary. Is /was this a common practice in that area?

It would be strange that is one reason it is thought that Cleophas was Joseph’s brother which would make the other Mary her sister-in-law.
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

I see your point. I was referring to “manglings” that fell within the realm of differences of opinion that God-fearing, Bible believing people could reach after studying an issue.

Heh. That’s a pretty obfuscatory statement.

In other words, you are saying that some people can interpret the Scriptures the way they wish (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, General and Particular Baptists, etc.*)

but others (Westboro Baptist Church, etc*) cannot??

Based on…what, exactly, do you discern who gets to “mangle” and who doesn’t?

*I like the “etc”. It leaves lots of room for more obfuscation.

 

[PRmerger]

Ezekiel 33:11, along with numerous other passages, clearly makes Westboro’s concept of a God laughing at the death of sinners to be un-Biblical.

What if they proffer their own Bible verses to support their view (and I am certain that they do!)?

When you read their various systematic theologies in support of the positions they hold, it is obvious that they love the Lord, hold the Bible to be God’s word, and only want to obey Him to the best of their ability.

Ditto for the Westboro Baptist Church.

Are we to judge that their claim to love the Lord is any less than the love that the “systematic theology” advocates proclaim?

There are differences among Christians about issues that cannot be proven one way or another from scripture.

'zactly!!! That is exactly why a final authority, a pillar and foundation of truth, is required!!!

I think this is shown by the work of serious and scholarly men such as in the “Mary in the New Testament” document that has been referenced in this thread. It is on these types of issues that I think we need to show tolerance and charity in our differences.

So who decides whether a differing opinion is permissible or whether a differing opinion is forbidden?

 

[batman1973]

Heh. That’s a pretty obfuscatory statement.

In other words, you are saying that some people can interpret the Scriptures the way they wish (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, General and Particular Baptists, etc.*)

but others (Westboro Baptist Church, etc*) cannot??

Based on…what, exactly, do you discern who gets to “mangle” and who doesn’t?

*I like the “etc”. It leaves lots of room for more obfuscation.

Whilst I grab another burger from your grill, please,don’t call the WBC a church. It really is an insult. They are a hate group, pure and simple. They misuse and abuse the Bible, and pervert teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

Whilst I grab another burger from your grill, please,don’t call the WBC a church. It really is an insult. They are a hate group, pure and simple. They misuse and abuse the Bible, and pervert teachings.

Indeed, they do. :sad_yes:

And that’s exactly why a final arbiter of truth is needed.

Otherwise, following the “authority? I don’t need no stinkin’ authority” model, no one can tell the WBC that they have divorced themselves from the Word of God. For they will simply say, “We are doing the same as you–reading the Bible and coming to our own interpretations. We claim to have the Holy Spirit, same as you.”

 

[cheezey]

Was this addressed re: ‘sisters’???

Let’s not forget the women folk…
There were ‘sisters’, too, though I don’t think named. Does the translation of words theory apply here as well?

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

 

[PRmerger]

Was this addressed re: ‘sisters’???

Let’s not forget the women folk…
There were ‘sisters’, too, though I don’t think named. Does the translation of words theory apply here as well?

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Not sure what the issue is?

The answer is the same as with the “brothers” of the Lord–they could be cousins, step-sisters, other close family members…whatever.

They just did not come from the womb of Mary.

 

[nitesnake]

Re: Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

I think almost all Protestant churches teach that don’t they?

 

[cheezey]

i was referring to theory of the (mis)translation of the word “brothers.” Does it apply to the word “sisters.”

Was not debating Mary’s status with the Church.

 

[cheezey]

Re: Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

I think almost all Protestant churches teach that don’t they?

Do they? Not that it is a scientific study, but of all the observing Protestants I’ve known, and I’ve known a lot, it was a head-scratching subject. Wasn’t discussed much either way. But The Virginity of Mary until Jesus was born, was never questioned

 

[PRmerger]

i was referring to theory of the (mis)translation of the word “brothers.” Does it apply to the word “sisters.”

Was not debating Mary’s status with the Church.

I don’t think there was a mistranslation with sisters.

 

[cheezey]

Good to know. Given how many lengthy responses there were on this part of the debate, yours is surprisingly succinct.

 

[Porknpie]

Indeed, they do. :sad_yes:

And that’s exactly why a final arbiter of truth is needed.

Otherwise, following the “authority? I don’t need no stinkin’ authority” model, no one can tell the WBC that they have divorced themselves from the Word of God. For they will simply say, “We are doing the same as you–reading the Bible and coming to our own interpretations. We claim to have the Holy Spirit, same as you.”

Or they could claim private revelation told them … Or that they prayed for the Spirit to guide them and felt a burning in the bosom and they knew it was true.

 

[Radical]

So scholars(who of course are infallible) say that it is a literary device. Does that mean that it didn’t actually happen?

it means that the authors of the gospels didn’t necessarily record a word for word history of what was said….this can be easily seen where two gospels record the same event, but the two records of what was said don’t match word for word.

It is not a teaching of the Church that it was through Mary’s ear.

I never said it was

You are being disrespectful with that comment.

and that is a false charge.

Luke was pointing out that Jesus was first born that is the meaning of the one who opened the womb. It does not address the hymen remaining intact.

”opening the womb” does indeed address the question of the hymen staying intact

The translation of that paticular scripture renders it either as friends or relatives

the passage has the events as follows:

a) Jesus and disciples enter house and it is so crowded they can’t eat (v.20);

b) On hearing this, the family leaves to take control of him (v. 21);

c) Jesus is accused by the teaches of the law and so he speaks to them in parables (v. 23-30);

d) Mary and Jesus’ brothers arrive outside of where Jesus was (v.31)

We aren’t told of anybody else arriving at the crowded house where Jesus was with his disciples…if you can’t (or won’t) make the connection between the family that left and Mary and the brothers who arrive, then I can’t help you

Another place Jesus’ “brothers” give Him advise something only an older brother would do because in that culture it would have been considered disrepectful.

I call fudge on this too…please provide your scholarly source that details what younger brothers (in that culture) could or could not do.

The quotes using similar language are not identifying the families. You would have a point if Jesus had said 42 He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, `You are Simon son of John. the brother of Andrew." Than your examples would be the same.

actually the words (the son) are exactly the same in the two verses…the reason that the verse involving Jesus takes the form that it does is b/c the Jews are identifying the various blood relationships of Jesus (that make him appear only normal)…there is nothing about “the son” that implies “only son”….but if you think otherwise, it would be nice to see that claim from a reputable scholar…

Falls short? Is that all you have?

sometimes one only needs to call a spade a spade

Jesus adhered to the Jewish religion.

he didn’t adhere to all their traditions…surely you have read that in the gospels

The subject is Jesus having siblings not Mary’s virginity. The reason the virginity is relevant to the subject is that her vow would negate any siblings.

it would 1) if she made such an unusual vow (a vow that is never stated but merely the product of wild inference) and 2) if she stuck to it

WOW! When you can’t refute, use ad hominems

wow, when I point out that your claims don’t match reality…you play the victim card…nice.

Until only means a period of time. Since this has already been hashed you know the argument. Provide a definition from a dictionary that has the meaning that you try to force.

try reading my posts again…it is not simply about “until”…it is about “not”, “until” and the grammar of the verb.

 

[adrift]

and that is a false charge.

The ECFs had some really bizarre notions in this regard…like Jesus being born through Mary’s ear so that her hymen remained intact…gotta love those traditions
but since we are noting what wasn’t mentioned in the gospels, why wasn’t the miraculous birth (through Mary’s ear or otherwise) mentioned? .

This sarcastic comment is disrepectful. If you say you weren’t making fun of either faith, you better take another look because that is the way it is comes across. It is not a false charge.

”opening the womb” does indeed address the question of the hymen staying intact
the passage has the events as follows:

It does not. Luke was making the point that Jesus was first born. His comment does not address the fact that Mary remained intact. It doesn’t prove anything either way.
You are off here to bad you didn’t read what I wrote.

a) Jesus and disciples enter house and it is so crowded they can’t eat (v.20);
The crowd wasn’t in the house. They were outside. There were so many that they couldn’t even eat. Jesus preched to them while they were outside of the hous
b) On hearing this, the family leaves to take control of him (v. 21);
Family? translated also as friends. In this society, family was aunts uncels, cousins in-laws. They don’t mention exactly what the relationship was. They didn’t leave. They went out side of the house.
c) Jesus is accused by the teaches of the law and so he speaks to them in parables (v. 23-30);They accuse Him of being possessed and He ask how can a house stand divided.

d) Mary and Jesus’ brothers arrive outside of where Jesus was (v.31)Where the ones that wanted to grab Him were also. Two different groups.

We aren’t told of anybody else arriving at the crowded house where Jesus was with his disciples…if you can’t (or won’t) make the connection between the family that left and Mary and the brothers who arrive, then I can’t help you

I
I have already demonstrated that they are two different groups.

call fudge on this too…please provide your scholarly source that details what younger brothers (in that culture) could or could not do.

Oh my goodness. O.k. The Founding of Christendom Warren H. Carroll. Also "Brethren of the Lord"-

QUOTE]sometimes one only needs to call a spade a spade

Turn about is fair. Your proof from a scholar? Oh wait a minute you actually didn’t say anything spade or otherwise:shrug:

he didn’t adhere to all their traditions…surely you have read that in the gospels

The man made traditions He didn’t surely you know the difference.

it would 1) if she made such an unusual vow (a vow that is never stated but merely the product of wild inference) and 2) if she stuck to it

Proof from a reputable scholar.

wow, when I point out that your claims don’t match reality…you play the victim card…nice.

Ad hominem again. What you said was

that is merely your fantasy

That attacks me personnally and not my argument not a statement of a victim but a statemnet of fact. There was no claim on your part to point out just an attack.

try reading my posts again…it is not simply about “until”…it is about “not”, “until” and the grammar of the verb.

It is about definition which you try to change to fit your idea.but if you think otherwise, it would be nice to see that claim from a reputable scholar…

 

[Good_Fella]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used.

In Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 the people in the crowd who are raising the question are speaking in Aramaic, which has no word for cousin. The Greek translation in the Gospel of Mark preserves the semitic idiomatic usage. The Gospel of Matthew wasn’t written in Greek, and the evangelist addressed the Jewish community.

Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers

As I already pointed out above in this thread, by referring to the list of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, James, Judas (Thaddaeus), and Simon the Zealot were not only cousins, but also apostles of Jesus. This would explain their close proximity to him while he preached and performed miracles. So Mary could naturally have accompanied her nephews to see Jesus for whatever reason she had instead of going alone.

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

My gut feeling is yes, Joseph would have felt fine fulfilling all his duties as a husband, including the conjugal act. It has been mentioned a couple of times that there is something somehow unclean or defiling about the natural way of conceiving and bearing children, but I don’t see how that’s possible in the context of the marriage relationship, which is blessed by God.

Mary was only legally married to Joseph who served as a guardian to both her and Jesus. Morally she belonged to God by whom she conceived a child together with him. We read in Scripture that Joseph was betrothed to Mary. This meant that the two were already legally married in an initial stage. Mary was regarded as belonging exclusively to Joseph her husband, and so it was absolutely forbidden that any other man should not only touch her, but also not even approach her with a proposal. The Hebrew word for betrothed is kiddush which is derived from kadash meaning “holy”, “consecrated” and “set apart”; as Israel is described in her marital relationship with God. When the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary to convey the divine proposal, it is unlikely that God would have approached Mary unless she and her husband had intended to arrange a celibate marriage. If they had intended to have children of their own, then God, in keeping with the principles of his own divine law, would have sent the angel Gabriel to Joseph first, as any Jewish man would have been required to do out of moral obligation when expressing his interest in another man’s wife and desire to marry her pending a file for divorce. However, since Mary and Joseph had no plan to consummate their marriage, which was more a legal arrangement of guardianship, the angel Gabriel appeared first to Mary with the good news.

When the angel Gabriel eventually spoke to Joseph in a dream on account of Mary being with child in spite of their betrothal, it was to reassure him that his wife had not been unfaithful, but that the child she carried was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Until then Joseph could have filed for a divorce on the grounds of his wife’s supposed promiscuity. In fact, he had the right to publicly condemn her and even have her stoned for committing adultery (Deut 22:22-29). But upon the angel’s visit, the table had turned. Joseph would have questioned whether he had any lawful right to go through with the marriage ceremony now that Mary had conceived a child by another person. After all, he was a just man who who would have faithfully observed the Mosaic law (Mt 1:14). The angel relieved Joseph’s fear when he instructed him to take Mary to his home as his lawful wife, but not to normally co-habit with her: *paralambano gunaika *(Mt 1:20-21). There was no need for the angel to tell Joseph that he shouldn’t fear “to come together” (bo e-lei-ha imma) or “lay with” (vai-yish-kav imma) Mary (cf. Gen 30:3, 16-17), since the two had never intended to have conjugal relations. If they had, then God wouldn’t have sent the angel Gabriel to Mary with his proposal, at least not first to her. It was no coincidence that the angel appeared to a woman who was a virgin and asserted that she had “no relations with a man” (Lk 1:34) when she was told by him that she would conceive a child some time in the future.

And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy child to be born shall be called the Son of God."
*Luke 1, 35 *

God conducted himself to Mary as a husband to his wife, and as a groom to his bride no less honourably as he had to Israel. The exclusive relationship that the virgin Mary had with God since she was a young girl was consummated the moment she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, whose spouse she had fully become at the Annunciation. In her own person as a type of daughter Zion, Mary was declared “holy”, “consecrated” and “set apart” for God the moment she pronounced her fiat (Lk 1:38). The angel told Mary that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Most High. In ancient Jewish culture, a man’s laying power over a woman (resuth) was a euphemism for having marital relations. Similarly, for a man to overshadow a woman or spread his cloak or wing over her was a euphemism for his having conjugal relations with her in the sacred bond of matrimony. Ruth intended to have conjugal relations with her lord Boaz when she replied: “I am your handmaid Ruth. Spread the corner of your cloak over me, for you are my next of kin” (Ruth 3:9). The word “cloak” (tallith), literally “wing” (kannaph) is derived from the word tellal, meaning “shadow”. The relationship between God and Mary was a marital one just like the relationship between God and Israel was (Ezek 16:8; Lk 13:34). So morally Mary belonged exclusively to God, which I’m sure Joseph would have understood as a devout Jew. He wouldn’t have touched Mary after the birth of Jesus even if he had originally intended to. Nor would God have violated Mary’s chastity and dishonoured her human dignity by merely using her body to produce a Son for him in the flesh. What was done to Mary through her free consent was “according to [his] word.”

PAX

 

[joe370]

Radical

Fail to have any one of those three and the PVofM is lost. Terullian denied 2 and 3. Origen likely denied 2.

Could you provide the quotes from them, regarding Mary having many children?

The Helvidians

He was a Roman senator correct?

Antidicomarianites

Who were the Antidicomarianites? Any affiliation with catholic church leadership?

Basil of Caesarea implied that the view that Mary had more children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy”

Citation…?

(J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495). Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius wrote: Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh

I detect some uncertainty there…

(Church History by Eusebius, 3:20.1). At 4:22.4 Hegesippus is quoted as saying:

The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

Cousin of the Lord…

…and so the weak “he said “brother” when he meant “cousin” b/c the language he wasn’t using didn’t have a word for cousin” argument can’t even be raised in this case, because the author uses the word for cousin, when he meant cousin.

So you believe that there is a Hebrew or Aramaic word for cousin?

Is that it? Do you have any more? I am looking for early catholic church leaders as opposed to the laity.

 

[joe370]

Radical;10153829]

Can you definitively prove, from scripture alone, that Mary had other children? Or, is this just a conclusion drawn based on the little information provided in scripture?

 

[Porknpie]

Can you definitively prove, from scripture alone, that Mary had other children? Or, is this just a conclusion drawn based on the little information provided in scripture?

Footnote: believe Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are interested in this answer too…