Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[po18guy]

Don’t know where you are getting ‘adelphos’ from. It’s ‘syggenēs’ not ‘adelphos’:

ἔλεγεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενέσιν καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ - Textus Receptus

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ - Greek NT Alexandrian texts

Either you are quoting from a different passage, or your source isn’t accurate.

All of this to oppose Martin Luther? All of this to oppose Huldrych Zwingli? All of this to oppose even Jean Calvin?

It smacks of an agenda, frankly.

 

[CEM5]

Before answering this question. Please read this explanation to the very end. …
So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).

Hi BornAgainRN,

In Semetic usage the terms “brother” and “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters. (cf Gn 14:16; 29:15; Lv 10:4) While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ‘ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother”, as in the cited passages. For ex. there is no doubt that in Mk 6:17 “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. Brothers of the Lord: Persons who formed part of Jesus’ entourage. Among them are James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. They are “relatives” of Jesus. For Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother and sister but also for close relatives as stated above. (Notes from NAB).

I have studied and read the Bible as well and here is what I have “found”:

James (the Less) and Joses/Joseph are the sons of Mary, the “sister” of Holy mother Mary. This is a relative of Mary’s, not a sister by the same parent. (i.e. a cousin, or aunt). This “Mary” is wed to Clopas. see John 19:25, Lk 24:10, Mk 15:47, Mk 16:1, Matt 27:55,56

Salome and Zebedee are the parents of James and John. These are the “***Sons of ***Thunder”. This John is the Aposte “whom Jesus loved” and gave His mother Mary into John’s care. SALOME is traditionally recognized as the mother of James and John – (The “Sons of Thunder” – Mk 3:17) and would thus be the wife of Zebedee. Compare Matt 27:55, 56 and Mk 15:40

There is another Mary in the N.T. who is the mother of John Mark.

Acts 12:12 RSVA
When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. This is, if I recall correctly, the Mark who was the scribe of Peter (for the Gospel of Mark). . This Mark was a cousin – ie: “brother” in the Aramaic language-- of Barnabas: Col 4:10, and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey. See Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36-39)

Holy mother Mary’s sister MARY, mother of JAMES (the less) and JOSEPH (also spelled JOSES)

There is more than one name given to the same person in the Bible in many instances.
Simon = Peter.
Saul = Paul.
Joseph = Joses.
Matthew = Levi
Clopas/Cleopas = Alphaeus, which is the Aramaic rendering of the Greek name Clopas) Acts 1:13

James is also called “the younger James” (Mk 15:40) or “James the Less”. This James became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Also called the “brother of Jesus” – Matt 13:55. (Acts 12:17; see Acts chapters 15 and 21). Mary is the wife of Clopas/Cleopas. (Jn 19:25)

MARY OF MAGDALA/MAGDALENE was healed by Jesus, from whom seven demons were cast out. (Lk 8:2). She is often erroneously depicted as a prostitute and shown as such in most movies. Nowhere in the Bible, or in Church tradition has she been mentioned as such.

SALOME is traditionally recognized as the mother of James and John – (The “Sons of Thunder” – Mk 3:17) and would thus be the wife of Zebedee. Compare Matt 27:55, 56 and Mk 15:40

So, there it is straight from Scripture.

No actual brothers and sisters of Jesus born of Mary. Mary remained ever Virgin.

P.S. NOTE: If, indeed, Mary had other sons, by “Law”, those sons would have been required to care for their mother, Mary. If they didn’t they would have been ostracized by the community and the High Priests and forbidden Temple rites. Since, by traditional teachings, Mary remained a virgin, and Jesus was her only child, she had no other children of her own to care for her. Thus, Jesus, with His dying breath, ensured His mother would be cared for by John, the son of Zebedee and Salome. - Jn 19:26, 27

 

[po18guy]

Either you are quoting from a different passage, or your source isn’t accurate.

Since the opinion which you express did not exist in Christian thought up to and beyond the reformers, and is not shared with the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, Lutherans or Anglicans, should you not, rather, examine first your own opinion and resources?

It is helpful not to assume that in 2,000 years, each and every one of the Apostles, disciples, martyrs, early Church fathers, Saints, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks, Nuns and laity are all wrong, while your private interpretation is correct.

The “supreme authority” of the bible tells us that scripture can be twisted. That same supreme authority tells us, in Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-38, that someone, chosen by God, and given the authority, is to interpret sacred scripture. God gave mere sinful men authority over the “supreme authority” How can this be?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

**Originally Posted by BornAgainRN
Either you are quoting from a different passage, or your source isn’t accurate. **
Since the opinion which you express did not exist in Christian thought up to and beyond the reformers, and is not shared with the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, Lutherans or Anglicans, should you not, rather, examine first your own opinion and resources?

PO18
You are not facing BornAgain’s challenge squarely as you have quoted above.

Both of you need to front up with which Greek Codex you are quoting from as they are obviously different manuscripts.

BornAgain
Allegations of “inaccuracy” are somewhat out of order if you cannot show why the manuscript/Codex you have used should be considered “right” when there is actually no single golden-haired Greek original of the NT in existence.
You are probably using the Protestant compiled TextusReceptus for your Greek translation. You cannot expect Catholics on a Catholic Forum to just accept that without deeper analysis. And all the more so as the TextusReceptus appears to have used only 6 manuscripts dated no earlier than the 12th century!

I suggest that if the word is present in a majority of the four earliest and most complete Greek Codices (Sinnaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Receptus and Alexandrinus) that would do it for me. I believe these date from around the 4th century.

I can tell you now this phrase isn’t even in Sinnaiticus so that won’t help either of you. This in itself is a warning sign that this verse may have been corrupted since earliest times so you may both be right (or wrong) and the actual word is lost for all time. It may even be that this word is a gloss/interpolation by a scribe (imitating the parallel verse in Matthew) so it was never in the missing Mark “original” anyhow.

 

[Patavium]

Steve,

I think I was a bit unclear. I am quoting Mark 6:3-4. Also, note the use of Adelpho in the greek in your scripture citation you are using to support your hypothesis. I did a cursory look into the biblical greek of your citations and Adelphos is predominant.

Also, you have yet to answer this Big Hole by Prieldedi

Welcome back, Steve.

You are the only person I know that says that Salome is a sister of the Virgin Mary.

On page 15, in your post #211 you said: “Also, since Jesus was 12, His brothers & sisters may not have been born yet. If Mary was 13 when she had Jesus (which 12 would have been ‘marrying age’ then), that would put Mary at 25, by the time Jesus was 12 - still ‘child-bearing age’ to have children.”

I answered to this comment in my post #243 on page 17. Have you read it? You accept that the supposed siblings of Jesus may have not been born when He was 12 at the Temple visit. That makes him at least 13 years older (if not more) than His oldest sibling, which means that when Jesus began His public life the oldest sibling was, at most, 17 years old. Mary was not on a mission to populate Palestine in a hurry all by herself, so let’s say that the others were born 2 years apart, which makes them 15, 13, 11, 9 and 7 when Jesus was 30.** And you want us to believe these teenagers talked down on Jesus**?

Steve remember in answering this question you can only use the Bible. I mean No speculations on babysitters, caravans, and others apply.

Also, read

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “THE son of Mary” (Mk 6:3), not as “A son of Mary”. The Greek expression implies he is her ONLY son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s SONS, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren”. If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

 

[po18guy]

PO18
You are not facing BornAgain’s challenge squarely as you have quoted above.

Both of you need to front up with which Greek Codex you are quoting from as they are obviously different manuscripts.

God’s revealed truth is not determined by reverse-engineering history from an incomplete written historical record and a Greek dictionary. Since this allegation divides rather than unites, the Holy Spirit cannot be the prime mover in it.

My point is that BornAgainRN is making allegations against long-settled Christian doctrine. My point is that scripture is being added to. My point is that, since it does not affect salvation, the point is being argued solely to oppose Catholic/Eastern Orthodox teaching. My point is that many individuals in scripture were brothers and sisters, even though they may not have been blood relatives at all.

Nowhere in the 66 book bible (or any bible) does it name, specifiy, mention, or otherwise give flesh to any other children of Mary. Period.

Those who disagree with Catholic teaching are free to do so. Their arguments here consistently fail.

 

[Patavium]

God’s revealed truth is not determined by reverse-engineering history from an incomplete written historical record and a Greek dictionary. Since this allegation divides rather than unites, the Holy Spirit cannot be the prime mover in it.

My point is that BornAgainRN is making allegations against long-settled Christian doctrine. My point is that scripture is being added to. My point is that, since it does not affect salvation, the point is being argued solely to oppose Catholic/Eastern Orthodox teaching. My point is that many individuals in scripture were brothers and sisters, even though they may not have been blood relatives at all.

Nowhere in the 66 book bible (or any bible) does it name, specifiy, mention, or otherwise give flesh to any other children of Mary. Period.

Those who disagree with Catholic teaching are free to do so. Their arguments here consistently fail.

I agree . I would also add that Steve’s arguments were already refuted hundreds of years ago by St. Jerome. This is nothing new. It is simply what happens in Christian Protestantism.

 

[po18guy]

I agree . I would also add that Steve’s arguments were already refuted hundreds of years ago by St. Jerome. This is nothing new. It is simply what happens in Christian Protestantism.

It is well-known among exorcists that the evil one and his demons never attack Mary. It is my belief that he dupes well-meaning Christians into accomplishing his work for him.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

God’s revealed truth is not determined by reverse-engineering history from an incomplete written historical record and a Greek dictionary…

My apologies PO18, you are not the one who originally said:
"No Steve [BornAgain]. This is the actual phrase in Mark 6:4 in the biblical greek. Note the bolded term. IT IS ADELPHOS. This is what we are trying to tell you. It is NOT syggenes."

It was actually Patavium who originally made this assertion when disagreeing with BornAgain.

 

[Patavium]

My apologies PO18, you are not the one who originally said:
"No Steve [BornAgain]. This is the actual phrase in Mark 6:4 in the biblical greek. Note the bolded term. IT IS ADELPHOS. This is what we are trying to tell you. It is NOT syggenes."

It was actually Patavium who originally made this assertion when disagreeing with BornAgain.

I apologize for the confusion. I intended to quote Mark 6:3, not Mark 6:4.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

sigh I give up, I have little patience for people who think ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES (Catholic, Orthodox, Melkite, Coptic, Syriac, etc.) erred in such an important part of Christ’s history by proof of his/her own “Spirit-inspired” interpretation of Scripture.

Do you know, BornAgainRN, that one can actually argue from Scripture that ALL OF CHRISTIANITY IS WRONG with respect to the Ten Commandments (in whatever form they are), by saying that (among other things) the tenth of the Ten Commandments is actually “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”?

Ever since learning that, I have been very wary of novel interpretations of Scripture, especially with something so unanimously held to be true by ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES like Jesus Christ being Mary’s only child, especially when such “Scriptural proofs” against such a Tradition are not air-tight.

It is like saying the Word of God lied when He said

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

So guys I am leaving this discussion, it has become useless for me.

 

[Erich]

BornAgain
I suggest that if the word is present in a majority of the four earliest and most complete Greek Codices (Sinnaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Receptus and Alexandrinus) that would do it for me. I believe these date from around the 4th century.

I can tell you now this phrase isn’t even in Sinnaiticus so that won’t help either of you. This in itself is a warning sign that this verse may have been corrupted since earliest times so you may both be right (or wrong) and the actual word is lost for all time. It may even be that this word is a gloss/interpolation by a scribe (imitating the parallel verse in Matthew) so it was never in the missing Mark “original” anyhow.

Not to derail the thread, but I find it interesting that you would accept the authority of manuscripts from the 4th century for ‘adelphos’ but reject the belief of many – including the Church Fathers Papias (c. 60-130), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Origen (c. 185-254), Eusebius (c. 260-340) Jerome (c. 340-420), and Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430) – that Matthew was the first gospel to be written.

The theory that Mark was the first gospel to be written was unheard of prior to the late 18th century; it contradicts all the ancient historians, the 2000 year old tradition of the Catholic Church, including a dogmatic decree of the Second Vatican Council, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant bodies and a growing number of modern exegetes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not to derail the thread, but I find it interesting that you would accept the authority of manuscripts from the 4th century for ‘adelphos’ but reject the belief of many – including the Church Fathers Papias (c. 60-130), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Origen (c. 185-254), Eusebius (c. 260-340) Jerome (c. 340-420), and Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430) – that Matthew was the first gospel to be written.

The theory that Mark was the first gospel to be written was unheard of prior to the late 18th century; it contradicts all the ancient historians, the 2000 year old tradition of the Catholic Church, including a dogmatic decree of the Second Vatican Council, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant bodies and a growing number of modern exegetes.

Erich
I have no idea where you are coming from on this sorry . Somehow you seem to be thinking I am making an argument that mark was written before Matthew. That may or may not be the case but I make no observation on that here.

The lads above were arguing over whether Mark 6:4 used the word “relatives” or “brothers.”
If there is indeed a Greek source discrepancy then it can be explained by the choice of Greek manuscripts used. I have no idea who is “more right” and I do not care.

I am simply making what seems to me a common sense observation that we at least look at the four oldest major manuscripts rather than be limited to the relatively arbitrarily chosen six or so thirteenth century manuscripts of TextusReceptus that appear to lie behind the English King James Bible.

I find it fascinating that Codex Sinnaiticus (the oldest and most complete I believe) does not even contain the phrase that the guys were arguing over!
You can find images online of the actual papyri. While Mark 6:4 is there alright, the phrase “among his relatives” appears not to be in the papyrus.

I also made the comment that, if Mark’s original written Gospel (lost) actually did not have this phrase (which means the Sinnaiticus lacuna is not a lacuna at all but actually a faithful copy on this point) then how is it that later manuscript copies do have this phrase?

I then suggested that those later copyists may have noted the much fuller parallel verse in Matthew and decided the manuscript they were copying from actually had a lacuna in Mark 6:4 - and so they took it upon themselves to correct it by making it consonant with Matthew.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not to derail the thread, but I find it interesting that you would accept the authority of manuscripts from the 4th century for ‘adelphos’ but reject the belief of many – including the Church Fathers Papias (c. 60-130), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Origen (c. 185-254), Eusebius (c. 260-340) Jerome (c. 340-420), and Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430) – that Matthew was the first gospel to be written.

The theory that Mark was the first gospel to be written was unheard of prior to the late 18th century; it contradicts all the ancient historians, the 2000 year old tradition of the Catholic Church, including a dogmatic decree of the Second Vatican Council, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant bodies and a growing number of modern exegetes.

CONTINUED…
But having actually looked up the parallel in Mt 13:57 I see that it isn’t actually “fuller” than Sinnaiticus Mk 6:4 in any case. So why do the manuscripts differ and which is more faithful to the lost original. Is Sinnaiticus correct? Interesting questions but no clear answers without further research by the looks of it.

It hardly matters for this discussion as Patavium has made clear he was looking at the wrong verse anyhow.

 

[tabycat]

:bounce::banghead:About the any thing you can do, when this subject comes up, is to, after about 15 or 20 posts on the thread, is to grab the popcorn, bounce over to the wall and start banging your head against the wall!

 

[Patavium]

:bounce::banghead:About the any thing you can do, when this subject comes up, is to, after about 15 or 20 posts on the thread, is to grab the popcorn, bounce over to the wall and start banging your head against the wall!

I wonder how St. Jerome must feel as he watches from Heaven. He probably says I already answered this question hundred of years ago!

 

[po18guy]

:bounce::banghead:About the any thing you can do, when this subject comes up, is to, after about 15 or 20 posts on the thread, is to grab the popcorn, bounce over to the wall and start banging your head against the wall!

Since the interpretive authority in all of bible Christianity is the individual ego, we can only advise them of revealed truth and allow them to believe what they will. To me, it appears to be rather arrogant that those claiming that Mary had other children seem to assume that they are more enlightened than almost 2,000 years of great Christian leaders - many of which they agree with on other points.

 

[Patavium]

Since the interpretive authority in all of bible Christianity is the individual ego, we can only advise them of revealed truth and allow them to believe what they will. To me, it appears to be rather arrogant that those claiming that Mary had other children seem to assume that they are more enlightened than almost 2,000 years of great Christian leaders - many of which they agree with on other points.

Yes .

Steve (BornAgainRN) is one of those that disagrees with St. Jerome on Perpetual Virginity, but agree with him with regards to deuterocanonical books , but not with St. Jerome acceptance of Pop Damassus ruling

In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

But BornAgainRN then proceeds to ignore St. Jerome on Perpetual Virginity

This is the same lens he used to interpret scripture. Choose what agrees with him

 

[Erich]

Erich
I have no idea where you are coming from on this sorry . Somehow you seem to be thinking I am making an argument that mark was written before Matthew. That may or may not be the case but I make no observation on that here.

Sorry. I misunderstood what you meant when you referred to “the Mark original” right on the heels of referring to the “parallel verse in Matthew.”

Knowing there are those who assume Markan priority is “gospel truth” – and knowing that this is basically a thread about “what did the Early Church believe vs. what do some folks believe today” – I interpreted “the Mark original” as referring to Mark’s Gospel, and not a particular manuscript.

 

[tabycat]

I wonder how St. Jerome must feel as he watches from Heaven. He probably says I already answered this question hundred of years ago!

It was answered about 2000 years ago. There are some that would not the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph or the Lord God Himself that Jesus was an only Child.