C
choy
Guest
one of those called the brother of Jesus was a believer
this was James
so going by your argument, why was Mary left in the care of John and not James if James is the son of Mary?
- Status
this was James
so going by your argument, why was Mary left in the care of John and not James if James is the son of Mary?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
What is the problem with Mary being left with her nephew? According to your traditions, John’s mother is Salome the sister of the Virgin Mary.
Of course as someone who believes differently about certain matters, I do not think we can know all of Christ’s motives. I do know it turned out very well according to history. John lived to be old. There is no evidence that any harm came to Mary. Christ’s brothers became believers and James served well as the head pastor of Jerusalem until he was martryed.
Seems like Christ had this under control…
Of course as someone who believes differently about certain matters, I do not think we can know all of Christ’s motives. I do know it turned out very well according to history. John lived to be old. There is no evidence that any harm came to Mary. Christ’s brothers became believers and James served well as the head pastor of Jerusalem until he was martryed.
Seems like Christ had this under control…
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
You raise some very good points here, and to be honest I can totally see where you are coming from. You are a really smart person, and well educated. I have much respect for you! This definatly is a good response, and I admit I don’t have a counter argument on this point. The points you brough up could very will be an indicator of your opinion. But this is what I did want to address, and it ties in with the above statement:
The Bible doesn’t clearly define biological siblings. Others on here have described far better than I ever could the way hebrew culture functioned as far as familial relationships. Besides, there is the issue of Jesus ordering a non-sibling to care for his mother on the cross. This would be extremely disrespectful and disordered for him to do that if he had a younger brother. He would basically be declaring that all his younger brothers were so inept that they couldn’t care for her. We don’t see that being the case with any who were identified “brother of the Lord” and as others pointed out, multiple people are identified as such.
We also have historical accounts. People who actually knew Mary when she was living and breathing recorded that she remained a virgin and had no children but Christ. This was not really challenged until well after Luther. I’m afraid I have to take the words of 1st hand sources over the musings of someone millena later.
I really am not good at debating this topic as, I admit, I am not that knowledgeable on it. I know the basics, but I am still learning. I know there are others here that could talk about it way more than I could. I will enjoy reading this thread, but I won’t really debate. I just want you to know that so you don’t think I am ignoring you, as your posts are indeed very thought provoking!
I am proud to have a sibling in the faith who is so devoted to our Lord. Keep it up!
J
justamoose89
Guest
You guys should read the proto-evangelium of James
Its not inspired, true, but it is a valid historical document. Joseph was already old when he wed Mary, and it indicated that yes he had children from a previous marriage, but they were already grown. Joseph was a widower who lived by himself. Actually, in the proto-evangelium, it says that Joseph was actually sort of embarrassed because Mary was much younger than he was- she was 12 or 14 years old!
Its not inspired, true, but it is a valid historical document. Joseph was already old when he wed Mary, and it indicated that yes he had children from a previous marriage, but they were already grown. Joseph was a widower who lived by himself. Actually, in the proto-evangelium, it says that Joseph was actually sort of embarrassed because Mary was much younger than he was- she was 12 or 14 years old!
C
choy
Guest
i liked the Protoevangelium as well but the tradition in the Roman Church is that they were cousinsYou guys should read the proto-evangelium of James
Its not inspired, true, but it is a valid historical document. Joseph was already old when he wed Mary, and it indicated that yes he had children from a previous marriage, but they were already grown. Joseph was a widower who lived by himself. Actually, in the proto-evangelium, it says that Joseph was actually sort of embarrassed because Mary was much younger than he was- she was 12 or 14 years old!
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
V
vera_dicere
Guest
Thank you OP!
Exactly! I mean, if men can shelve their sexual urges and become priests, and if non-married Catholic men can hold their urges until marriage, then it stands to reason that such a good man as Joesph would respect his legal wife and not touch her in anyway given the vessel she was.
I know a lot of non-Catholic Christians have some malice when they speak of Mary having more children, but I think that such a concept is just as insulting to Joesph!
And get a load of this: this was a billboard erected for Christmas last year by a non-Catholic Christain church. Its truly blasphemous. But it did get vanderlised several times, once by an old lady who hurled a brick at it!
Be warned, but I think it sums up the blasphemous mind set of some and the disrespect some are willing to show to not only Mary and Joesph, but Jesus also.
s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/12/17/10/god-is-a-hard-act-to-follow-19680-1261065492-4.jpg
Exactly! I mean, if men can shelve their sexual urges and become priests, and if non-married Catholic men can hold their urges until marriage, then it stands to reason that such a good man as Joesph would respect his legal wife and not touch her in anyway given the vessel she was.
I know a lot of non-Catholic Christians have some malice when they speak of Mary having more children, but I think that such a concept is just as insulting to Joesph!
And get a load of this: this was a billboard erected for Christmas last year by a non-Catholic Christain church. Its truly blasphemous. But it did get vanderlised several times, once by an old lady who hurled a brick at it!
Be warned, but I think it sums up the blasphemous mind set of some and the disrespect some are willing to show to not only Mary and Joesph, but Jesus also.
s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/12/17/10/god-is-a-hard-act-to-follow-19680-1261065492-4.jpg
D
Darian
Guest
Obviously James did not become a believer until after the resurrection.
C
choy
Guest
proof?
A
aicirt
Guest
Wasn’t John the Apostle who was not married? Would be reasonable for him to care for the BVM as she would look after him and his home.
J
justamoose89
Guest
Oh my goodness! That link is horrible! Apparently those people did not read Luke 1:48 when Mary says that “all generations will call me blessed”… that billboard isn’t exactly screaming blessedness…
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not that she would have become a sinner, or “defiled,” but that she had already become a living Tabernacle of the Lord.
Once the Lord has been in a Tabernacle, then even if He is no longer there for some reason, it doesn’t occur to anyone to take the Tabernacle into the kitchen and use it as an ordinary bread box - even though from a practical point of view, that could be done - but you just wouldn’t, and it’s hard to explain why - it just “feels” completely wrong - and for myself, I would just leave an empty Tabernacle sitting where it is, without touching it or doing anything with it, because I wouldn’t want to profane it in any way, even by accident.
If this is so when Jesus is hidden under the appearance of bread, how much more so, when Jesus was plainly visible to Joseph? Having met God face to face, would it even occur to Joseph to try to have other children with Mary?
With regard to the James controversy, there are two Jameses in the New Testament - one is the son of Alphaeus, and the other is the son of Zebedee, which means that neither of them is the son of Joseph, and therefore, cannot be the son of Mary the mother of Jesus - it’s more likely that one or both of them was a cousin of Jesus’.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t blame her. A Church put that thing up?! It was a billboard?! What in the world were they thinking? Don’t they realize that children see these things, and start asking questions?
C
catsrus
Guest
There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.
I guess that’s why they are protestants.
I guess that’s why they are protestants.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
Well, the original billboard was going to have Mary standing there in a state of undress with a glowing sperm flying down from Heaven.I don’t blame her. A Church put that thing up?! It was a billboard?! What in the world were they thinking? Don’t they realize that children see these things, and start asking questions?
And yeah, a Christian church put this up. A lot of contraversy. They said they wanted to create a dialgoue and get people thinking about what Christmas was all about.
A
aicirt
Guest
Which begs the question, just what qualifies as “Christian”? How does a church do something scandalous and call itself a church?
V
vera_dicere
Guest
stmatthews.org.nz/
You only have to look at the image on their front page.
The reality is down here in little ole New Zealand there are some sickeningly blasphemous forms of “christainity”, and it seems to be very much the norm for the non-Catholic branches of Chrsitanity - or at least the ones that get the most attention.
Christ loves everyone, but He always was telling people to “sin no more”. A lot of the liberal chruches down here focus all on the loving and not on the instruction.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
I think we should be praying for them. I personally will pray that these people will honestly and humbly seek God’s truth in all they do, just as I need to; and also that God will lead them to the full light of truth just as everyone else who truly seeks him.
J
Joshua27
Guest
Thank you, sister.The Bible doesn’t clearly define biological siblings. Others on here have described far better than I ever could the way hebrew culture functioned as far as familial relationships. Besides, there is the issue of Jesus ordering a non-sibling to care for his mother on the cross. This would be extremely disrespectful and disordered for him to do that if he had a younger brother. He would basically be declaring that all his younger brothers were so inept that they couldn’t care for her. We don’t see that being the case with any who were identified “brother of the Lord” and as others pointed out, multiple people are identified as such.
We also have historical accounts. People who actually knew Mary when she was living and breathing recorded that she remained a virgin and had no children but Christ. This was not really challenged until well after Luther. I’m afraid I have to take the words of 1st hand sources over the musings of someone millena later.
I really am not good at debating this topic as, I admit, I am not that knowledgeable on it. I know the basics, but I am still learning. I know there are others here that could talk about it way more than I could. I will enjoy reading this thread, but I won’t really debate. I just want you to know that so you don’t think I am ignoring you, as your posts are indeed very thought provoking!
I am proud to have a sibling in the faith who is so devoted to our Lord. Keep it up!
To your point, Cominghome; If we are to honor the “traditions” of the Jewish people of the time, then we must also remember that children (plural) were considered blessings from God and a Commandment, and the culture of each Jewish family of the time was to have a “large” family, as such was a family’s success.
Now I’m going to share a passage that many people have probably overlooked…
Matthew 1:24-25 (NASB) “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
Matthew 1:24-25 (ISV) “When Joseph got up from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary as his wife. 25 He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”
Matthew 1:24-25 (NLT) “When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.”
Matthew 1:24-25 (Douay-Rheims) “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
[Please reference any other edition or translation of this passage for corroboratation…]
- Notice that the word “until” is used as it relates to Joseph “knowing” Mary in terms of “sexual relations”…so the conditional phrasing of this passage suggests that Joseph (indeed) had sexual relations with Mary, his wife, AFTER Christ was born.
- Referring back to “Cominghome’s” comment that “this was not written in 2010”; we’ll continue to honor the culture and traditions of the Jewish people, thus we know that: (a) there wasn’t any modern contraception, (b) Joseph was a just [Jewish] man [Matthew 1:19]…so we can presume that at least one additional sibling was probable if not inevitable because Joseph “knew” Mary after Christ was born.
While the passages that refer to Christ’s “brothers and sisters” [Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 7:1-10] could refer to cousins, Matthew 1:24-25 proves that they also could be - and possibly are - REAL siblings, since Mary did not remain a virgin.
F
firstmode
Guest
Please do not compare this blasphemous church as just some protestants like the rest:
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/images/UserFiles/File/St-Matts-Ark-banner.jpg
I
Izdaari
Guest
I am very curious what the Catholic answer to Matthew 1:24-25 might be, as it is the one objection that I’ve never seen answered.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]
And if, as in the D-R, Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son, is there not an implication that she had other sons? There also seems to be an implication that Joseph did “know” her afterward.
Personally, I do not see how Mary remaining perpetually virgin enhances her blessedness or holiness at all. Being married and having children is blessed and holy too, is it not? At least as much so to my way of thinking as staying a virgin.
It is possible of course, that Jesus’ siblings, mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels, are actually cousins, or perhaps children of Joseph’s first marriage. But I don’t see any compelling reason to believe that.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]
And if, as in the D-R, Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son, is there not an implication that she had other sons? There also seems to be an implication that Joseph did “know” her afterward.
Personally, I do not see how Mary remaining perpetually virgin enhances her blessedness or holiness at all. Being married and having children is blessed and holy too, is it not? At least as much so to my way of thinking as staying a virgin.
It is possible of course, that Jesus’ siblings, mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels, are actually cousins, or perhaps children of Joseph’s first marriage. But I don’t see any compelling reason to believe that.
- Status