Did Mary have other children?

[guanophore]

If i may make an observation, it seems that Catholics look for Mary in every verse of scripture in the same way that “protestants” look for Jesus in every verse.

This is quite possible. I recently read the NT again myself, looking for references to baptism in every verse. You make an excellent point, that how we understand the Scripture is dependent upon our mental framework (perceptions) when we are reading it. This is why it can be so dangerous to read it apart from the framework of those who penned it.

On the original question,

Yes Mary had other children, according to scripture. they are named

If you are willing to look at this honestly, it will be clear that these children belong to another Mary.

many times prophecy isn’t fulfilled in the manner that our imagination assumes.

You are so right, just like understanding the scripture does not happen in the manner that our imagination assumes.

The passages that indicate Mary ‘knew’ Joseph are overwelming.

Only to persons such as yourself, who are easily overwhelmed by any wind of doctrine. The only references to Joseph “knowing” Mary say that he did not.

In addition Josephus a Jewish Roman historian comments on "Jesus" brothers.

The idea that the Greek terms for brother and sisters is erroneous. The Greek word for cousin/relative is very different than that for brother/sister.

Of course, Josephus was also raised in a clan structure such as Jesus. All Jews were. Josephus also had near kindred that were referred to as brother and sister.

Look at this verse:
Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

You do realize I hope, that ‘the knew her’ comment is a ‘knowing in a Carnel sense’ right?

Yes. the passage says “he knew her not”.

There are a number of other scriptural proofs of Mary’s other children, and the idea that she lived with John because she didn’t have other kids, ignores history.

Really? I am anxious to see this history!

James was the first Marter post Jesus death. The remaining brothers were most likely all martyerd like James, and John was the youngest apostle.

You are putting forth speculation here. This is not history. James was older than Jesus.

Guess who lived to a ripe old age when all the other Apostles and most disciples, including most likely Jesus’s family, were killed? Yep, John. He was the only surviver. Hence thats why Jesus gave Mary to John for protection.

This is also speculation, though I don’t find it disagreeable. I am sure Jesus knew how long He was going to leave John here. However, had there been other offspring of Mary, it would have been insulting to them to give His mother to someone not a blood relative.

The idea that Mary was ‘ever Virgin’ is absurd. Why would God have given her in Marriage??

Do you really thing that the idea of a person taking vows of chastity is “absurd”? If so, why?

God gave Joseph to Mary to protect her,a nd her son.

Joseph was a true ‘husband’, and hence he knew his wife in that way.

This is fanciful imagination on your. What you are saying is that Christ is not really betrothed to His Bride, because He did not have sex with her.

Otherwise, she would have been single or 'ever single'.

Such a statement reveals a gross ignorance of ancient Jewish culture. there is no such thing as “single” women, especially those of childbearing age. The only women who did not have a brother, father, or husband as guardian were prostitutes. Are you saying that Mary became a prostitute?

Its not a salvation issue, so I am not concerned with whether or not she was, or was not ‘Ever Virgin’, my concern is the poor exegesis this doctrine brings with it.

And, it is well you should be concerned about this. Doctrine should never be determined by “exegesis”. This is a faulty approach to doctrine that emanates from the error of Sola Scriptura. On the contrary, sound doctrine is received from the Apostles. The doctrine committed by Jesus to the church was whole and entire before one word of the NT was written. Therefore, trying to “exegete” doctrine apart from what was committed to the Apostles is a grievous error.

And all because some Pope centuries ago said thats the way it is. But then again, here is another crazy doctrine that leads to all sorts of problems for well meaning Catholic believers.

No, two. Mary is not who she is because of any Pope. God made her Theotokos long before He appointed a pope.

 

[guanophore]

the scriptures are written in Greek and that is what we must use to interpret what the writers are stating.

This statement is wrong on two counts. First, the book of Matthew was originally penned in Aramaic, which has no word for cousin.

Second, we don’t use the Gk. to understand whatt the writers are stating. Although knowledge of the Gk. is immensely helpful, what is more important is that we understand what is written from the point of view of the writers. This framework is contained in the “once for all” Divine Deposit of faith given by God to the Church. This was given before any of the NT was penned, and is critical to understand how the NT reflects the doctrine given to the Church.

Extrapolating doctrine from Scripture was an unfortunate consequence when the Reformers chose to reject the Sacred Tradition committed by the Apostles to the Church.

The Greek word used in Matthew is Heos hou which most definitely can imply a change in the previous condition.

If we look at another example in scripture we find the same words being use in Acts 23:12
When it was day, the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul

The word used for till is heos hou which is the same word Matthew uses in 1:25. By your supposition the Jews would never have eaten even after killing Paul.

Yes, I agree.

You need to understand the Jewish culture to see why Matthew wrote his Gospel the way he did. In Matthew 1:18 we read: When his mother Mary had been betrothed [6] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

The word used for come together is synerchomai which means conjugal cohabitation. Matthew fully expected Mary and Joseph to have marital relations and let’s his Jewish readers know that the child Mary was carrying was not Josephs because they had not yet come together.

No, two. I do agree that you have interpreted the word correctly, but it was not Matthews word, since he wrote in Aramaic. Furthermore, Matthew knew Jesus and Mary,and he knew that Mary had no other children.

In the Jewish culture this was a serious offense given that they had entered a marriage contract. Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death along with the individual that she had relations with. Matthew tells us Joseph is pondering this decision and being a just man he doesn’t want to bring shame to Mary and her family. Then the Angel appears to him letting Joseph know the child is from the Holy Spirit. This is important because it confirms Mary is still a virgin and did not cheat on Joseph. Given the typical time frame for a betrothed Jewish couple is about 1 year or so Mary would still have been pregnant with Jesus at the time of their wedding preventing them from consecrating the marriage. So Matthew let’s us know that they waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus.

I agree with your points here,with the exception that Joseph and Mary had no intention of consummating the marriage. Mary was given to Joseph so that he could be a protector and guardian of her and her son, not for the purpose of creating offspring.

Your proposal of the belief of Mary being ever virgin as being around since the early church is false.  No writings from any early church fathers post-apostolic speak to this doctrine at all.  In fact we see no devotion to Mary start to develop until the 3rd or 4th century.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

 

[guanophore]

In regard to your first point, yes, it is true that in Hebrew the terms are interchangeable, and could be confused, Josephus clearly uses the term for siblings in extrabiblical texts when refering to Jesus siblings.  So does the terms in the Gospls.

Including the translation of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic.

Your assertion that maybe these are Josephs kids has no scriptural support, and is necessary to support the tradional Catholic view, despite the lack of evidence.

Actually, it is not. There are many other possibilities. In fact,we see that those named as “brothers and sisters” of Jesus belong to another Mary, who may have been Joseph’s sister. She is called the sister of the mother of our Lord, so it is possible that she is an older sister of hers by blood. It seems odd to us that there would be two girls in the same family named “Miriam”, but I know a family who has Mary Jo, Mary Ellen, Mary Elizabeth,etc, so I guess it is possible.

In regard to your second point: You opine the Greek word used is ‘donec’, but this is inaccurate. The actual word used is ‘heos’ and the implication is clear, Joseph new her not until Jesus was born…hence, he did know her after that point in time.

I agree. It still does not have implications for what happened after. For example, Michal did not have any of David’s children after she reached 'until".

Your third point about selling Joseph short: Not at all. The cultural idea of a consumated marriage was the marriage bed, which would have been customary especially after Jesus was born. Joseph could have been anyone, but did not need to be a husband if he were never to ‘know’ her.

Perhaps not,but it was customary for consecrated virgins to be given into the care of a devout man who had already finished his own family.

Lastly, I forget which Pope it was the made the decree that she was ever virgin, but it was in the 6th century I believe. From reading from our Parish library’s books, one of the listed 10 major papal decrees was this very issue. The historical representation of why it occured was because this Pope believed we were ‘minimizing’ Mary, and felt it important to re-emphasize her; hence the decree came. Catholics are now stuck with this. Dispite better biblical scholarship over the centuries that clearly indicates different. Not to mention extrabiblical texts

In a sense you are correct here. Catholics are “stuck” with the deposit of faith that was committed to the Church by the Apostles. We are commanded to hold fast to this, forsaking none of it. That leaves us without the freedom to embrace innovative changes in doctrine emanating 1500 years after th e fact as a result of “better biblical scholarship”.
Which part of this divine deposit of faith which was once for all delivered to the Church that is emphasized in any given age generally reflects the heresies rampant at that time.

My last comment about your comment is the most important in my mind. You said ‘this is all about our Lord’, and I totally agree. Catholics erroneously attribute sinlessness and ever virginity to Mary to protect Jesus. Yet, its the ‘sins of the Father’ that are passed down to generations, not the Mother. The OT makes this abundantly clear. The Father is the Holy Spirit and is perfect, sinless and does not need any other help in conveying his nature and perfection.

The Jewish faith and culture is patriarchal in nature, and the patriarch is responsible for his family and his clan. This does not mean that women do not inherit original sin, or that the fallen nature of humanity is not passed through and by women. Mary need to be saved, so that she would not pass on the stain of original sin to her Son. I agree that teh Father does not need “help”. It is He that chose to do it this way… He could have chosen another way.

The idea that Mary needs to be elevated by ‘the Immaculate Conception’, ‘her Assumption’ and her ‘ever virginity’ is unwarrented.

In your judgement perhaps, but you are not God, and since he deems it proper,well, you opinion seems to be of little value, except possibly to yourself, and others who choose to reject those that Jesus appointed to shepherd the Church.

Scripture tells us to honor her, and well it should. She is a great matriach of faithfulness and discipleship.

No, two, Mary is no “matriach”. She is the handmaiden of the Lord.

But to raise her with these baseless claims is just harmful to all Catholics understanding of scripture and hurts their ability to use good exegesis when they are constantly defending centuries old decrees that make no sense.

Ahh. So you would have Catholics abandon the teachings committed to the Church by the Apostles so that we can be more “modern” and “scholarly”? ONe of my favorite lines from Fr, Corapi comes to mind.“People can be educated into imbecilty”.

Believe me, this is not to put Catholics down. I am in great sorrow because of this, as it hurts my brothers and sisters ability really understand all that scripture holds for them. In peace

Well, I do appreciate your sentiment, though it is based upon misunderstanding and misinformation, I believe that you are sincere in your concern.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige the scriptures are written in Greek and that is what we must use to interpret what the writers are stating. The Greek word used in Matthew is Heos hou which most definitely can imply a change in the previous condition.

If we look at another example in scripture we find the same words being use in Acts 23:12
When it was day, the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul

The word used for till is heos hou which is the same word Matthew uses in 1:25. By your supposition the Jews would never have eaten even after killing Paul.

But, that is the same word used in John 9.18 in stating “But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.” Go read those passages and it will be clear that the Jews didn’t believe after either, which shows that your proof-word heos. in at least this instance, had no bearing on what happened later. Many people do use until, at least in English, to imply a change at a certain point. But, as John 9.18 indicates, heos doesn’t have to be used in that way. There we see it is only being used to speak about what happened up to to a specific point. Matthew 1.25 is just not an effective proof-text for your position.

 

[cothrige]

In regard to your first point, yes, it is true that in Hebrew the terms are interchangeable, and could be confused, Josephus clearly uses the term for siblings in extrabiblical texts when refering to Jesus siblings. So does the terms in the Gospls.
Your assertion that maybe these are Josephs kids has no scriptural support, and is necessary to support the tradional Catholic view, despite the lack of evidence.

Actually, I don’t think it is necessary. The idea is very ancient, first being recorded I believe in the Protoevangelium of Mary in the second century (I think). That is not a canonical work, but that doesn’t mean everything in it is untrue, and it does show how old the idea is. But, again, it is entirely possible that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were simply very close relatives, and so this idea is certainly not necessary.

In regard to your second point: You opine the Greek word used is ‘donec’, but this is inaccurate. The actual word used is ‘heos’ and the implication is clear, Joseph new her not until Jesus was born…hence, he did know her after that point in time.

The context of John’s verse is clearly different, and is apples to oranges.

My apologies, I was typing from memory. Donec is the Latin word which I recalled from previous conversations. You are right, the word actually used is heos.

But, this is certainly not ‘apples to oranges.’ It is said, very directly, that the Jews did not believe until they called the man’s parents. But, and this is crucial, neither did they believe after they called them. Your point about heos is simply undone.

Your third point about selling Joseph short: Not at all. The cultural idea of a consumated marriage was the marriage bed, which would have been customary especially after Jesus was born. Joseph could have been anyone, but did not need to be a husband if he were never to ‘know’ her.

But, God wanted St. Joseph to be a husband, and had a role for him in the Holy Family. Does that mean that God had to operate by the customs of people of that time? I don’t think so. I believe your position assumes human motives for God. I have no doubt that regardless of whether St. Joseph had children with the Blessed Virgin his role was essential. Husbands do more than beget children, even if it was customary to think otherwise in that time. He protected them during their exile to Egypt. He raised our Lord, teaching him and being a father to him. He was a holy saint for doing God’s work in that family, and it was certainly more than being a husband producing children. That is not saintly work. I have done that. I am sorry, but I still think this idea that St. Joseph had to have children or else he was not necessary does in fact sell him short. It misses all that he did for our Lord and His Mother.

The Father is the Holy Spirit and is perfect, sinless and does not need any other help in conveying his nature and perfection.

I disagree with this. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Son is not the Father either. The Spirit is not the Son. Only the Father is the Father.

The idea that Mary needs to be elevated by ‘the Immaculate Conception’, ‘her Assumption’ and her ‘ever virginity’ is unwarrented.
Scripture tells us to honor her, and well it should. She is a great matriach of faithfulness and discipleship. But to raise her with these baseless claims is just harmful to all Catholics understanding of scripture and hurts their ability to use good exegesis when they are constantly defending centuries old decrees that make no sense.

Believe me, this is not to put Catholics down. I am in great sorrow because of this, as it hurts my brothers and sisters ability really understand all that scripture holds for them.
In peace

I don’t think the Blessed Virgin is elevated by any of these. Our Lord is. He loved His Mother, and called her to him at her death. How does that elevate her? Who is honoured in this but the Son who loves his Mother? And the Immaculate Conception and Ever Virginity are nothing but a reverence for our Lord as well. It is not our Lady who is honoured in this, but she only honours God. Her womb is holy not because it is hers, but because it contained God. It is just like the verse I quoted in the OP. Go read it and tell me which is being elevated, God, or the gate?

 

[dianaiad]

Isaiah said a virgin would give birth to a child. How can a virgin be a virgin if she has sex? So Mary could not have sex, either before or after Jesus was conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Before the birth of Christ? yes, that would be true. However, I do not see how it is required that Mary remain a virgin after His birth. That does not logically follow at all. All women are virgins before they have sex the first time, and it doesn’t matter how many lovers, or babies, she has after that first time, nothing invalidates the fact that she was a virgin before the first time.

Nor could Joseph have children of his own, or else, when Jesus died, Mary would have lived with one of her sons, since that’s what widows did in her time. Instead, Mary goes to live with His favorite disciple, John.

Yes…but why? John was there at the crucifixion with His mother. Where was James or the other possible candidates for being her other children? John was there; they were not–He gave John to her as a son–not to replace Him, but as additional comfort.

This does not prove that he had no other siblings; it proves only that, evidently, they didn’t come to support His mother at His death.

Your arguments are weak, here, especially the bit about the requirement that she stay a virgin. I don’t see anywhere in scripture that requires this.

 

[guanophore]

Before the birth of Christ? yes, that would be true. However, I do not see how it is required that Mary remain a virgin after His birth. That does not logically follow at all.

You seem to speak as a person who has never been a parent. Any parent will tell you that it is a challenge to divide their time and attention among their children. Mary had consecrated herself to God. When she was given the responsibility to raise the Messiah, she did not want to divide her attention at all. All she wanted was to be a devoted handmaid of the Lord.

Further, such a statement reflects a lack of understanding of the sacredness of consecrated vessels. Those vessels and furnishings used in the Temple or to the service of God were not returned to daily use afterward. This would have been considered a profanation.

All women are virgins before they have sex the first time, and it doesn’t matter how many lovers, or babies, she has after that first time, nothing invalidates the fact that she was a virgin before the first time.

Exactly. That is why I say it would be much simplier for us to abandon what we recieved from the apostles, and embrace the teachings from the children of the Reformers that came along 1500 years after the fact.

Yes…but why? John was there at the crucifixion with His mother. Where was James or the other possible candidates for being her other children? John was there; they were not–He gave John to her as a son–not to replace Him, but as additional comfort.

I agree, however, such comfort could have been achieved without asking them to adopt one another, an act which would have been insulting if Mary had males who could legally take responsibility for her.

This does not prove that he had no other siblings; it proves only that, evidently, they didn’t come to support His mother at His death.

I think there were probably multitudes of family members that avoided watching the executions.

What is also interesting is that John already has a mother, also present at the crucifiixion.

Your arguments are weak, here, especially the bit about the requirement that she stay a virgin. I don’t see anywher e in scripture that requires this.

The Consecrated life is never “required”. Such a lifestyle (becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of God) is always entered by free choice of the individual. Mary chose this as a young child, and never departed from her commitment. This is why she was so mystified when the angel told her she would bear a child. She never had any intentions of ever having relations with a man. When she said “I do not know a man” she was referring to her celibate lifestyle.

 

[dianaiad]

You seem to speak as a person who has never been a parent. Any parent will tell you that it is a challenge to divide their time and attention among their children. Mary had consecrated herself to God. When she was given the responsibility to raise the Messiah, she did not want to divide her attention at all. All she wanted was to be a devoted handmaid of the Lord.

****** am speaking as “a person who has never been a parent?” Actually, I’m the mother if five. If there is one thing I learned immediately after the birth of my second child–and relearned after the births of each succeeding son or daughter, it’s this: love is not divided. It is multiplied, and time and attention are not taken from one child when it is given to another; it is also multiplied, in a very real way. Siblings support each other, and the entire family dynamic changes with the addition of children.

Not that it would apply to the Savior, but it is ALSO a truism that only children tend to be less–other centered–than children with siblings. Just from a practical point of view, having younger siblings would have been very good for Jesus.

…and if He did indeed have siblings, that was probably one of the advantages of having them. However, your argument is moot anyway; this is not whether she should have, but whether she actually did have other children. It would not have been sinful in any way if she had, y’know.

Further, such a statement reflects a lack of understanding of the sacredness of consecrated vessels. Those vessels and furnishings used in the Temple or to the service of God were not returned to daily use afterward. This would have been considered a profanation.

That’s fine, but Mary was neither pot nor chair. She was a woman. A very special woman indeed, but a woman nonetheless; a mother and a wife.

Exactly. That is why I say it would be much simplier for us to abandon what we recieved from the apostles, and embrace the teachings from the children of the Reformers that came along 1500 years after the fact.

And where, from the apostles, is there anything that states that Mary did not live with Joseph as his wife in every way, or that she never had other children?

I agree, however, such comfort could have been achieved without asking them to adopt one another, an act which would have been insulting if Mary had males who could legally take responsibility for her.

Unless there was some reason why they could not do so, either financially or because they were out doing apostle stuff, or how about this: Jesus was in incredible pain, didn’t have a whole lot of breath to use, He saw John, He saw Mary–and didn’t see anybody else. Therefore…

The point is, we are BOTH speculating as to the reason why Jesus did what He did with Mary and John. My speculation is not evidence that Jesus had siblings, and yours is not evidence that He did not.

What I am saying is that the evidence you have presented so far does not preclude the possibility.

I think there were probably multitudes of family members that avoided watching the executions.

Indeed…so is there any wonder that He would ask the friend that actually CAME to care fore His mother, since evidently His brothers did not come to support her?

What is also interesting is that John already has a mother, also present at the crucifiixion.

So Mary would not only have a place to live, she would have good friends with which to share the rest of her life; friends who understood and could support her. Makes sense.

The Consecrated life is never “required”. Such a lifestyle (becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of God) is always entered by free choice of the individual. Mary chose this as a young child, and never departed from her commitment. This is why she was so mystified when the angel told her she would bear a child. She never had any intentions of ever having relations with a man. When she said “I do not know a man” she was referring to her celibate lifestyle.

Since WHEN? She was, what…thirteen, fourteen? It would have been very odd indeed for her to have made such a decision and to hope that it would stick; her parents had, you realize, ALREADY ARRANGED A MARRIAGE for her.

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of this, while romantic and respectful of Mary, is simply not supported by scripture–or by the culture she lived in or the religion she espoused.

But please, if you have scripture to support this view, I’d really like to see it.

 

[guanophore]

****** am speaking as “a person who has never been a parent?” Actually, I’m the mother if five.

Then you of all people should realize the differences that exist between raising one child, as opposed to five.

Also, have you never considered the nature of human beings, and what types of scandals would have arisen among those who claimed to be blood relatives of Christ? Just look what a ferver a fictional story like the da Vinci code produces! Had Jesus blood siblings, I am sure there would have been problems exceeding those of royal families through the years.

Not that it would apply to the Savior, but it is ALSO a truism that only children tend to be less--other centered--than children with siblings. Just from a practical point of view, having younger siblings would have been very good for Jesus.

Do you imagine that Jesus may have had a problem with being other centered?

....and if He did indeed have siblings, that was probably one of the advantages of having them. However, your argument is moot anyway; this is not whether she should have, but whether she actually did have other children. It would not have been sinful in any way if she had, y'know.

I agree, just sacriligious.

 a woman nonetheless; a mother and a wife.

Are you saying that she was unable, or unwilling to set aside pleasuring herself to serve the King of Kings?

And where, from the apostles, is there anything that states that Mary did not live with Joseph as his wife in every way, or that she never had other children?

This is the consistent teaching of the Church received from the Apostles.

Unless there was some reason why they could not do so, either financially or because they were out doing apostle stuff, or how about this: Jesus was in incredible pain, didn’t have a whole lot of breath to use, He saw John, He saw Mary–and didn’t see anybody else. Therefore…

So, the Divine Son of God succumbed to his fleshly weaknesses, and did something inappropriate?

The point is, we are BOTH speculating as to the reason why Jesus did what He did with Mary and John. My speculation is not evidence that Jesus had siblings, and yours is not evidence that He did not.

No, actually, I do not need to speculate because I have received the teaching of the Apostles. I believe it because that is what they taught, and I trust Jesus at His word, that He was able to lead them into all truth.

What I am saying is that the evidence you have presented so far does not preclude the possibility.

I can accept that. I personally do not believe that it is possible to “prove” any articles of faith from scripture.

Indeed...so is there any wonder that He would ask the friend that actually CAME to care fore His mother, since evidently His brothers did not come to support her?

Not at all. However, it is how the Apostles and their disciples understood what He meant that matters most.

Mary would not only have a place to live, she would have good friends with which to share the rest of her life; friends who understood and could support her. Makes sense.

And all of them understood that, as they were in Christ, she was their mother. This is what they all taught to their disciples.

Since WHEN? She was, what…thirteen, fourteen? It would have been very odd indeed for her to have made such a decision and to hope that it would stick; her parents had, you realize, ALREADY ARRANGED A MARRIAGE for her.

Yes, such vows and marriages connected with them were in the minority, although not unheard of. If they were not taking place, laws would not have been written about how they were supposed to work.

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of this, while romantic and respectful of Mary, is simply not supported by scripture–or by the culture she lived in or the religion she espoused.

That is ok. I do not claim that it is possible to “prove” such things from scripture. Scripture came from the same Source as the Sacred Traditions - Jesus, through the Apostles. they were there. They knew Mary did not have other children.

But please, if you have scripture to support this view, I’d really like to see it.

Have you ever considered that those referred to in the gospel of Matt. as "brothers and sisters’ are actually children of another Mary?

 

[dianaiad]

Then you of all people should realize the differences that exist between raising one child, as opposed to five.

Yes. My grandmother told me, before I had my third child, that 'the first three are the hardest." I thought she was nuts. I found out that she was not. Raising five kids is easier than raising two.

Also, have you never considered the nature of human beings, and what types of scandals would have arisen among those who claimed to be blood relatives of Christ? Just look what a ferver a fictional story like the da Vinci code produces! Had Jesus blood siblings, I am sure there would have been problems exceeding those of royal families through the years.

Why would there have been?

Do you imagine that Jesus may have had a problem with being other centered?

No, but He may have needed to understand the problems of children who were not Him.

I agree, just sacrilegious.

How could something be sacrilegious without being sinful? And what would be sacrilegious about it, anyway? You are, you realize, begging the question. If He indeed have siblings, then having siblings would have been acceptable to His Father–and therefore it would not have been in any way sacrilegious.

Are you saying that she was unable, or unwilling to set aside pleasuring herself to serve the King of Kings?

Are you saying that there is something innately sinful about being a loving wife and mother? As I said, I have five kids. I don’t think that the position of ‘mother’ is ever first and foremost about pleasuring oneself.

…and I’m beginning to understand the mindset of some of the early church fathers who weren’t certain that women actually had souls.

This is the consistent teaching of the Church received from the Apostles.

Where?

So, the Divine Son of God succumbed to his fleshly weaknesses, and did something inappropriate?

No, actually, I do not need to speculate because I have received the teaching of the Apostles. I believe it because that is what they taught, and I trust Jesus at His word, that He was able to lead them into all truth.

I don’t have a problem with that, actually. But I asked what teachings those were, exactly, and you have yet to provide them. Where is the scripture that supports this?

I can accept that. I personally do not believe that it is possible to “prove” any articles of faith from scripture.

Not that they are ‘true,’ no–but what they ARE? Yeah, that sorta has to come from scripture.

Not at all. However, it is how the Apostles and their disciples understood what He meant that matters most.

Uhmn…from where I sit you are interpreting what they said in your own way. I don’t see what you see there. So again I ask…where is the scripture to support your stance?

And all of them understood that, as they were in Christ, she was their mother. This is what they all taught to their disciples.

Then what He said to John on the cross wasn’t a bit inappropriate, was it–even if she had other biological children?

Yes, such vows and marriages connected with them were in the minority, although not unheard of. If they were not taking place, laws would not have been written about how they were supposed to work.

There is no, repeat NO evidence to support the idea that Mary was going to enter into one such marriage (and I would be interested in any information you have about such things.)

That is ok. I do not claim that it is possible to “prove” such things from scripture. Scripture came from the same Source as the Sacred Traditions - Jesus, through the Apostles. they were there. They knew Mary did not have other children.

Sez who? I’m sorry, but there is nothing in their writings to indicate this. Nothing. So how do you know that they knew this?

Have you ever considered that those referred to in the gospel of Matt. as "brothers and sisters’ are actually children of another Mary?

I suppose it could be, though it doesn’t make much sense given that James was considered by many of the early fathers to be Jesus brother ‘in the flesh.’

(shrug)

Here’s the thing: My faith in Him as my Savior would not be affected at all if I found out that He had mortal, physical siblings; I would indeed be happy that Mary was not left entirely without family support after the sufferings she saw. It would also not be affected if I found out that He did NOT have mortal siblings. He is Who He is.

How about yours?

 

[guanophore]

Raising five kids is easier than raising two.

I wonder if raising Jesus was difficult for Mary?

Why would there have been?

For the same reason the Apostles were arguing over who was the greatest.

No, but He may have needed to understand the problems of children who were not Him.

I read this and was appalled, then I looked at your affiliation, and I understand now.

How could something be sacrilegious without being sinful? And what would be sacrilegious about it, anyway?

Since you are LDS, you probably have no experience with consecrated persons.
Once a person has made a vow such as celibacy, forsaking it to go back to worldly pleasures is a very serious matter.

 You are, you realize, begging the question. If He indeed have siblings, then having siblings would have been acceptable to His Father--and therefore it would not have been in any way sacrilegious.

It would be inappropriate for Mary to violate her vow of chastity. Had she never made such a vow, of course there is nothing sacreligous about living a normal married life.

Are you saying that there is something innately sinful about being a loving wife and mother? As I said, I have five kids. I don’t think that the position of ‘mother’ is ever first and foremost about pleasuring oneself.

No, for those who are called to marriage, this is the path to sanctification. For those that are called to celibacy, it is not. For those who are called to celibacy, forsaking it is a matter of falling into the desires of the flesh.

…and I’m beginning to understand the mindset of some of the early church fathers who weren’t certain that women actually had souls.

Is that why Paul wrote:

1 Tim 2:15-3:1
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

?? I have always wondered about that.

Where?

The teaching of the Apostles is kept among those who have preserved the Apostolic Succession.

I don’t have a problem with that, actually. But I asked what teachings those were, exactly, and you have yet to provide them. Where is the scripture that supports this?

Catholic doctrine is not distilled from exegesis of Scripture. It comes from the Apostles.

Not that they are ‘true,’ no–but what they ARE? Yeah, that sorta has to come from scripture.

If you believe that the scriptures contain all truth, then there is no point continuing the discussion. I am willing to concede that scripture is very ambiguous on the matter.

Uhmn…from where I sit you are interpreting what they said in your own way. I don’t see what you see there. So again I ask…where is the scripture to support your stance?

It is likely that you will not be able to see what I see. The same holds true for the Trinity, another word not found in Scripture but that is part of Orthodox Christianity which you reject.

There is no, repeat NO evidence to support the idea that Mary was going to enter into one such marriage (and I would be interested in any information you have about such things.)

It has already been posted on this thread, and many other threads of the same topic. I will accept that you are not convinced by it.

Sez who? I’m sorry, but there is nothing in their writings to indicate this. Nothing. So how do you know that they knew this?

Because we have received the faith from them. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

it doesn’t make much sense given that James was considered by many of the early fathers to be Jesus brother ‘in the flesh.’
(shrug)

Yes, James was a near kin of Christ, the son of another Mary, referenced in scripture as the “sister” of the mother of our Lord.

Here’s the thing: My faith in Him as my Savior would not be affected at all if I found out that He had mortal, physical siblings; I would indeed be happy that Mary was not left entirely without family support after the sufferings she saw. It would also not be affected if I found out that He did NOT have mortal siblings. He is Who He is.

How about yours?

Mine would be shaken to the roots. It would mean that I could not trust anything that was handed down to us by the Apostles as being free of corruption. It would mean that Jesus was a liar or a weakling, that He did not, or could not, as he promised lead the Church into “All Truth”, and that he did not remain with them, as He promised, but abandoned them and left them as orphans.

But then, my idea of He is Who He is is very different than yours.

 

[twohumble]

Including the translation of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic.

You say this with quite a bit of confidence however here is a quote from a Messianic Jewish scholar on this topic
"Thus, there is no evidence that the Gospels were written originally in any other language but Greek. If there were versions of Matthew or the other Gospels originally penned in Aramaic (in accordance with the language Christ used), they were very quickly translated into Greek so that they could be utilized throughout the Roman world. Both Greek and Aramaic were essentially Gentile languages, and the Lord was able and willing to use them to convey His teachings, so that the Good News could go forth from His homeland of Israel to “the uttermost parts of the earth.”

In other words, don’t be so sure of that. Also, it really does not change my point. Josephus was definately penning in Greek, the learned language of the day not the common. He definately distinguished and his choice of words clearly indicate siblings. Even a Catholic NT scholar at Catholic University quotes this information in his Book Jesus; A Marginal Jew".

Actually, it is not. There are many other possibilities. In fact,we see that those named as “brothers and sisters” of Jesus belong to another Mary, who may have been Joseph’s sister. She is called the sister of the mother of our Lord, so it is possible that she is an older sister of hers by blood. It seems odd to us that there would be two girls in the same family named “Miriam”, but I know a family who has Mary Jo, Mary Ellen, Mary Elizabeth,etc, so I guess it is possible.

Yes this is another gyration when trying to explain away what seems obvious to everyone else. The names in Hebrew were common and often used multiple times. This was not at all unusual in that culture.

I agree. It still does not have implications for what happened after. For example, Michal did not have any of David’s children after she reached 'until".

You are correct, its not proof positive, but when put together with the many other passages that note Jesus brothers and sisters and their context, along with the fact that James the Apostle was distinguished from James the Brother of Jesus so often, in both biblical and extrabiblical works (Josephus) it seems the conclusion is obvious to all but those who must uphold this silly papal decree of centuries ago.

perhaps not,but it was customary for consecrated virgins to be given into the care of a devout man who had already finished his own family.

Into the care yes: NOT for marriage. As I said, Joseph could have been anything or anyone, but NOT a husband. A care giver, an Uncle, a body guard, but not betrothed, thats just silly to even assume.

More to come:

 

[twohumble]

In a sense you are correct here. Catholics are “stuck” with the deposit of faith that was committed to the Church by the Apostles. We are commanded to hold fast to this, forsaking none of it. That leaves us without the freedom to embrace innovative changes in doctrine emanating 1500 years after the fact as a result of “better biblical scholarship”.
Which part of this divine deposit of faith which was once for all delivered to the Church that is emphasized in any given age generally reflects the heresies rampant at that time.

Better scholarship is something you disdain? Do you doubt that today scholars of ancient languages have more access to more extant documents of more translations than any scholar in ancient times? Do you doubt that modern scholarship can evaluate centuries of scholarship with a great advantage of hindsight and better technology? Please read C.S. Lewis’s essay on “Modern Biblical Critisism” in “God in the Dock” You might find it enlightening on how this has helped us better understand and be sure of translation errors that occured before.

The Jewish faith and culture is patriarchal in nature, and the patriarch is responsible for his family and his clan. This does not mean that women do not inherit original sin, or that the fallen nature of humanity is not passed through and by women. Mary need to be saved, so that she would not pass on the stain of original sin to her Son. I agree that teh Father does not need “help”. It is He that chose to do it this way… He could have chosen another way.

Sorry, I must pull scripture on you here. I did not say woman don’t inherit original sin. I said they don’t pass their sin nature on. The OT is clear that its the ‘sins of the Father that are passed on to future generations’, not the mother. Mary had no more need of being sinless to carry Jesus that a surrogate mother has need of being the same color as the biological parents. In the end, its Gods doing, not hers.
You assume and (name removed by moderator)ut your presuppositions of the need for Mary to be sinless on scripture, but nowhere is that apparent in the Bible. Thats pure eisogesis.

In your judgement perhaps, but you are not God, and since he deems it proper,well, you opinion seems to be of little value, except possibly to yourself, and others who choose to reject those that Jesus appointed to shepherd the Church.

Are you suggesting that I don’t accept Jesus as the appointed Shepherd of the Church? An in regard to suggesting opinions are of little value, be careful then, as you share yours. This seems rather rude for a man who is sharing Christ. You first claim my opinions are valueless then imply that me, and others who don’t agree with you must not accept Jesus as the Head of the Church?? Wow, thats over the line, but where sin abounds, grace too shall abound. Please refrain from going ad hominem on me here ok?

No, two, Mary is no “matriach”. She is the handmaiden of the Lord.

Wow, again. This seems pretty argumentative. I think its plain that just as Abraham was a pillar of righteousness, I am according Mary a great and elevated position in the ‘Hall of Fame of the Righteous’. You can quible about terms all you want, but it just seems like you want to argue here.

Ahh. So you would have Catholics abandon the teachings committed to the Church by the Apostles so that we can be more “modern” and “scholarly”? ONe of my favorite lines from Fr, Corapi comes to mind.“People can be educated into imbecilty”.

Again refer to my above response and read Lewis’s essay noted above.
Our ability to keep the Apostles teaching pure depends on good scholarship and men who take time to learn this stuff in detail. If you don’t think the Catholic (and many others, even perhaps all others) have fallen into bad teaching and bad understanding at times in their history, then you are deluded. Do you deny there were periods of great corruptness within the Church? Where people were taught things out of line with Truth? Are you that nieve?
Today we have faiths falling away from Truth in large ways "Episcoples annointing gay priests, methodists and others having woman pastors, denial of sciptural authority and infallibility, I could go on. But here is what I know. God does not let his Word be corrupted for long without correction. Usually by men of good/great scholarship and character who correct those who have gone astray. So, I would have you put away bad doctrines not from the Apostles, but from subsequent errors in transmission and corruption of doctrine by subsequent generations.
The good news is we have 1000’s of extant manuscripts of the NT and can correct bad theology better now than ever.

I agree with your statement about misinformation, I just question who has it?

 

[dianaiad]

I wonder if raising Jesus was difficult for Mary?

Think about it.

Here’s a very special woman…but a woman and human for all that, tasked with raising Jesus, the Son of God, Who is perfect. Never sins. Never does anything wrong. If there is ever a difference of opinion then He is right and she is…not.

Tell me. Do you think that was difficult? Personally I hope she DID have other kids, just to get some semblance of sanity in her life; someone she could actually say “when you grow up I hope you have kids JUST LIKE YOU…” and have it be the 'Mom’s curse."

…instead of a catch in the throat piece of sorrow.

For the same reason the Apostles were arguing over who was the greatest.

I read this and was appalled, then I looked at your affiliation, and I understand now.

DO you, she says sweetly…

Since you are LDS, you probably have no experience with consecrated persons.
Once a person has made a vow such as celibacy, forsaking it to go back to worldly pleasures is a very serious matter.

Oh, we understand about promises and covenants very well indeed. The problem is that you have failed to show me where Mary had made such a covenant before the angel appeared to her, or that her marriage to Joseph was intended to be a celibate one.

It would be inappropriate for Mary to violate her vow of chastity. Had she never made such a vow, of course there is nothing sacreligous about living a normal married life.

And there’s the question. Could you show me where she ever made such a vow?

No, for those who are called to marriage, this is the path to sanctification. For those that are called to celibacy, it is not. For those who are called to celibacy, forsaking it is a matter of falling into the desires of the flesh.

Yes, a promise is a promise, whatever the promise is. You are still begging the question, however, of whether Mary ever MADE such a promise of celibacy after Christ’s birth.

Is that why Paul wrote:

1 Tim 2:15-3:1
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

?? I have always wondered about that.

You and Thomas Aquinas would have been buds…

The teaching of the Apostles is kept among those who have preserved the Apostolic Succession.

uh…huh? You mean that these teachings (which would be scripture by definition) are kept secret and the rest of us have to take your word for what they say?

Now, now, I’m certain you didn’t mean that. (continued on the next post)

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

Catholic doctrine is not distilled from exegesis of Scripture. It comes from the Apostles.

Fine…then you should be able to quote from them, and if they claim to have gleaned this wisdom from scripture (which they would have had to have done, unless they are claiming divine revelation, in which case what THEY wrote was scripture by definition…) which you can also give me.

If you believe that the scriptures contain all truth, then there is no point continuing the discussion. I am willing to concede that scripture is very ambiguous on the matter.

As you have noticed, and commented upon, I am LDS. We do indeed believe that scripture contains all truth–but we don’t happen to believe that the canon is closed.

It is likely that you will not be able to see what I see. The same holds true for the Trinity, another word not found in Scripture but that is part of Orthodox Christianity which you reject.

You are quite right. I am not orthodox. Or Orthodox. Just Christian. But you are also correct in noting that your version of the trinity isn’t exactly mentioned in scripture either. Which, of course, is a problem.

It has already been posted on this thread, and many other threads of the same topic. I will accept that you are not convinced by it.

I"m sorry, I haven’t actually read those posts. I was asking you.

Because we have received the faith from them. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

Yes it was. For THEM. But all we know about what their beliefs were come from what they personally wrote–and that’s scripture. Anything else is actually interpretation OF scripture, which (I’m sorry…) could be wrong.

Yes, James was a near kin of Christ, the son of another Mary, referenced in scripture as the “sister” of the mother of our Lord.

Please, could you explain how to nail that down using scriptural references (or I’ll take accepted extrascriptual references of people who were actually there at the time…)

Mine would be shaken to the roots. It would mean that I could not trust anything that was handed down to us by the Apostles as being free of corruption. It would mean that Jesus was a liar or a weakling, that He did not, or could not, as he promised lead the Church into “All Truth”, and that he did not remain with them, as He promised, but abandoned them and left them as orphans.

But then, my idea of He is Who He is is very different than yours.

I suppose it is. I believe that He is Jesus Christ, the Savior, the Annointed One, the Son of God, the second Member of the Godhead…fully God Himself. I believe that He and His Father gave us everything, including free will, and we screwed up.

I also believe that He prophesied that an apostasy would take place, but that the gates of hell would not ultimately prevail against His church. It did take place, I believe, and they did not prevail. I do realize that this is very different from your beliefs, but I understand one other thing; my faith in Him is not going to be shaken because MY misconceptions about Him might be proven false. My perceptions are imperfect, after all, and He is what He is–whether that is a single child, (which He is…any siblings he had would be half-siblings) or the oldest of however many.

 

[guanophore]

You say this with quite a bit of confidence

Yes, I do have complete confidence in the Teaching of the Catholic Church. I believe Jesus literally when He promised that He would send them His HS to lead them into all truth.

however here is a quote from a Messianic Jewish scholar on this topic

"Thus, there is no evidence that the Gospels were written originally in any other language but Greek. If there were versions of Matthew or the other Gospels originally penned in Aramaic (in accordance with the language Christ used), they were very quickly translated into Greek so that they could be utilized throughout the Roman world. Both Greek and Aramaic were essentially Gentile languages, and the Lord was able and willing to use them to convey His teachings, so that the Good News could go forth from His homeland of Israel to “the uttermost parts of the earth.”

You failed to cite your source, so I don’t know if you made this up yourself, or cut and pasted it from somewhere else.

Suffice to say that it seems to me, any scholar worth their salt would accept the evidence that Matthew was written first in Aramaic. Even if a person wanted to reject these statements in the historical record, to say they don’t exist makes one appear ignorant.

However, I do agree, all the Gosples were quickly translated into Gk. so they could be accessible to all.

In other words, don’t be so sure of that. Also, it really does not change my point. Josephus was definately penning in Greek, the learned language of the day not the common. He definately distinguished and his choice of words clearly indicate siblings. Even a Catholic NT scholar at Catholic University quotes this information in his Book Jesus; A Marginal Jew".

If you think that Gk. was not the common language of the day when the Apostles were preaching, then you have quite a bit of history to learn.

Yes this is another gyration when trying to explain away what seems obvious to everyone else. The names in Hebrew were common and often used multiple times. This was not at all unusual in that culture.

Then I guess we are in agreement that there could be two sisters in one family named Miriam. I fail to see how this is a “gyration” except for someone who wants to get the attention of one and not the other.

You are correct, its not proof positive, but when put together with the many other passages that note Jesus brothers and sisters and their context, along with the fact that James the Apostle was distinguished from James the Brother of Jesus so often, in both biblical and extrabiblical works (Josephus) it seems the conclusion is obvious to all but those who must uphold this silly papal decree of centuries ago.

No, two, the fact that Mary did not have other Children did not come from any “silly papal decree”. This is the Teaching we have received from the Apostles. They lived and travelled with Jesus and Mary. They knew He was her only child.

Into the care yes: NOT for marriage. As I said, Joseph could have been anything or anyone, but NOT a husband. A care giver, an Uncle, a body guard, but not betrothed, thats just silly to even assume.

These types of marriages were legal, and afforded the consecrated virgin the rights of a married woman.

 

[guanophore]

You say this with quite a bit of confidence

Yes, I do have complete confidence in the Teaching of the Catholic Church. I believe Jesus literally when He promised that He would send them His HS to lead them into all truth.

however here is a quote from a Messianic Jewish scholar on this topic

"Thus, there is no evidence that the Gospels were written originally in any other language but Greek. If there were versions of Matthew or the other Gospels originally penned in Aramaic (in accordance with the language Christ used), they were very quickly translated into Greek so that they could be utilized throughout the Roman world. Both Greek and Aramaic were essentially Gentile languages, and the Lord was able and willing to use them to convey His teachings, so that the Good News could go forth from His homeland of Israel to “the uttermost parts of the earth.”

You failed to cite your source, so I don’t know if you made this up yourself, or cut and pasted it from somewhere else.

Suffice to say that it seems to me, any scholar worth their salt would accept the evidence that Matthew was written first in Aramaic. Even if a person wanted to reject these statements in the historical record, to say they don’t exist makes one appear ignorant.

However, I do agree, all the Gosples were quickly translated into Gk. so they could be accessible to all.

In other words, don’t be so sure of that. Also, it really does not change my point. Josephus was definately penning in Greek, the learned language of the day not the common. He definately distinguished and his choice of words clearly indicate siblings. Even a Catholic NT scholar at Catholic University quotes this information in his Book Jesus; A Marginal Jew".

If you think that Gk. was not the common language of the day when the Apostles were preaching, then you have quite a bit of history to learn.

Yes this is another gyration when trying to explain away what seems obvious to everyone else. The names in Hebrew were common and often used multiple times. This was not at all unusual in that culture.

Then I guess we are in agreement that there could be two sisters in one family named Miriam. I fail to see how this is a “gyration” except for someone who wants to get the attention of one and not the other.

You are correct, its not proof positive, but when put together with the many other passages that note Jesus brothers and sisters and their context, along with the fact that James the Apostle was distinguished from James the Brother of Jesus so often, in both biblical and extrabiblical works (Josephus) it seems the conclusion is obvious to all but those who must uphold this silly papal decree of centuries ago.

No, two, the fact that Mary did not have other Children did not come from any “silly papal decree”. This is the Teaching we have received from the Apostles. They lived and travelled with Jesus and Mary. They knew He was her only child.

Into the care yes: NOT for marriage. As I said, Joseph could have been anything or anyone, but NOT a husband. A care giver, an Uncle, a body guard, but not betrothed, thats just silly to even assume.

These types of marriages were legal, and afforded the consecrated virgin the rights of a married woman.

 

[twohumble]

Yes, I do have complete confidence in the Teaching of the Catholic Church. I believe Jesus literally when He promised that He would send them His HS to lead them into all truth.

You failed to cite your source, so I don’t know if you made this up yourself, or cut and pasted it from somewhere else.

.

Ok guanophore, I got ya and I too believe Jesus literally when he promised He would send His HS to lead us into Truth.

Here is my source for the quote:
“The Language of the Gospel”
by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
Dr. Thomas McCall, the Senior Theologian of our ministry, has written many articles for the Levitt Letter. He holds a Th.M. in Old Testament studies and a Th.D. in Semitic languages and Old Testament.

Here is the fact: There is not a single copy of Mathew in Aramaic. Not one.
That is not to say that your theory is wrong, but it goes against concensus teaching, and there is nothing but ‘circumstantial’ evidence for it.
I tend to agree with you on this however.
I just am not sure what difference that makes. The words in Aramaic and Greek are way more specific than Hebrew and you cannot ‘mistake’ cousin, relative etc. for brother and sister in these languages.

Also, I did not deny that Greek was commonly spoken, what I said was Greek was also the language of the learned, more so than aramaic. Hence historians in Rome like Josephus used Greek. Josephus refered to certain individuals as ‘brothers’ of Jesus in Greek.

God bless

 

[twohumble]

To Clarify:

Dr Thomas McCall is not associated with …or I am not associated with any ministry he is in…I copied his bio on that article and posted it…

As I read the “…theologian of our ministry” someone might think that was ‘my’ ministry…I am not associated with it in anyway.

 

[gcnuss]

At the risk of seeming flippant – and I certainly don’t intend to be – I would answer with another question, “does it really matter?” What matters, it seems to me, is that her “first-born” child, Jesus, is our Lord and Savior. The existence – or nonexistence – of siblings has nothing to do with who Jesus was and is nor would it change Mary’s role as the model of faith and obedience.

I think I’ll take my cue from Luther and affirm that Mary had no other children and that those who were referred to as brothers and sisters were really cousins.