S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Ummm … then how would they explain being pregnant with Jesus?
Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?
- Status
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
Ya beat me to the punch sola. I quite agree.
S
Sunwater
Guest
The greek word found in the earliest writings for brother and cousin are the same. The bibles we have today were translated from Greek. An another example of a mistranslation is “…easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.” the Greek word for camel is also the greek word for an extremely course, thick rope used for lashing and tying up boats. It is the exact opposite of a the thinnest thread. This is what Jesus was really saying, don’t you think?
We are stuck with being the end receiver in a game of telephone, my friends. When someone says that each word that we have leftover today from this game is from the mouth of God, I think they must have their head up their ying yang.
We are stuck with being the end receiver in a game of telephone, my friends. When someone says that each word that we have leftover today from this game is from the mouth of God, I think they must have their head up their ying yang.
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes I was just commenting on how brothers could have different meanings, I should have said cousins sooner. Its really hard because their language in those days didnt meant the same as ours. Thats why its so hard. I am really excited that you are considering reading up on the Blessed Mother. Thats is wonderful it will open such a new world for you. I promise you one thing, you will understand so much more and will Love and respect her so much more. Goof for you SS
R
rinnie
Guest
Sorry meant good!
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I agree, that “brethren” does not literally mean disciples in this instance, but it’s more likely the term denotes our Lord’s close cousins or kin who were also disciples of his. When Jesus replies, “Here are my mother and brothers,” he stretches out his hand in the direction towards these disciples who were with Mary outside. Jesus is telling this person that his blood ties with these cousins or relations of his are of no account in comparison with his spiritual ties with them as his disciples. Anyone, including his cousins and relatives, is like an immediate brother or sister to him if he or she does the will of his heavenly Father. The term “brethren” is sometimes used interchangeably in a single passage. On this occasion the person who addresses Jesus means cousin or kin, whereas Jesus means a brother as a sibling, but in a spiritual capacity. With respect to Mary, Luke relates the incident in which Jesus considers his mother rather blessed by hearing the word of God and keeping it. Our Lord regards his mother’s faith in God and fidelity more worthy of praise than the fact she gave birth to him.
PAX
M
MrS
Guest
You may have evidence or reference for that, but I do not see it posted here.That’s incorrect. Jewish Temple virgins would only serve in that role for a few years – after which they were married and had normal marital relations with their husbands. Under Jewish tradition virginity was not an honorable estate (having many children was considered a blessing & barrenness a curse). So it would have been an exception to the norm for Mary to have remained a virgin under even these circumstances. That being said – this isn’t a decisive factor, just another bit of evidence pointing away from the Catholic rendering of Mary. The fact is it would have difficult to imagine Mary could have remained a virgin. It’s likely she would have at least had to claim she was barren to her neighbors. Sometimes childbirth itself can cause damage to female reproductive organs, so she would have been able to claim this credibly. However, that would have made her a liar under Jewish law – which is problematic to the Catholic view of her sinlessness.
Even in a court of law enough circumstantial evidence will eventually overcome the bar of reasonable doubt (not that any of this evidence would be admissible, since of course it’s double hearsay and 2,000 years old, I’m just saying assuming scripture and our understanding of Second Temple Jewish custom is true then the Catholic rendering of events is a difficult proposition).
We only know that Joseph was around for 12 years before he died. And was already deceased by the start of Jesus’ ministry. Sometime in between he died. Mary did not “remarry”.
As for the rest of your post… it is simply coulda, woulda, shoulda, … anything that might even stick to the wall. Yet no consideration of those who knew Mary, traveled and lived with her… and nowhere do any of them even hint at other siblings.
Perhaps the next DanBrown offering will have an interview with someone who says “…yeah, Jesus is my great, great…uncle…”
,
S
Sunwater
Guest
Once while St. Peter was manning the pearly gates he realized he needed to take a-well, take a break. Since he saw no one approaching he thought it would be safe to leave briefly, but he asked Jesus to cover for him, just in case. Now wouldn’t you know it but as soon as Peter disappeared around behind a cloud, along came an old man up to the gates. Jesus was a bit nervous because he hadn’t done this before, so he was focusing on the big book that listed the questions he was supposed to ask the old man.
“Well, old man,” Jesus started, “tell me about your life.”
The old man thought for a bit and then said: “I worked as a carpenter. I had a son, but he didn’t come to be in the usual way, if you know what I mean. When my son grew older he fell in with some people who most considered some bad folks, but later there was some odd transformation. I never really understood it all. Some said he was a real person made of flesh and bones, others would dsagree…”
Well, Jesus was dumbfounded. He looked up in shock and said: “Father?!”
The old man suddenly looked up too, and said: “Pinocchio?!”
“Well, old man,” Jesus started, “tell me about your life.”
The old man thought for a bit and then said: “I worked as a carpenter. I had a son, but he didn’t come to be in the usual way, if you know what I mean. When my son grew older he fell in with some people who most considered some bad folks, but later there was some odd transformation. I never really understood it all. Some said he was a real person made of flesh and bones, others would dsagree…”
Well, Jesus was dumbfounded. He looked up in shock and said: “Father?!”
The old man suddenly looked up too, and said: “Pinocchio?!”
P
Publisher
Guest
LOL…that took me by surprise…thanks for the chuckle.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Cousin is possible – however, many commentators believe “brother” is the better view.I agree, that “brethren” does not literally mean disciples in this instance, but it’s more likely the term denotes our Lord’s close cousins or kin who were also disciples of his. When Jesus replies, “Here are my mother and brothers,” he stretches out his hand in the direction towards these disciples who were with Mary outside. Jesus is telling this person that his blood ties with these cousins or relations of his are of no account in comparison with his spiritual ties with them as his disciples. Anyone, including his cousins and relatives, is like an immediate brother or sister to him if he or she does the will of his heavenly Father. The term “brethren” is sometimes used interchangeably in a single passage. On this occasion the person who addresses Jesus means cousin or kin, whereas Jesus means a brother as a sibling, but in a spiritual capacity. With respect to Mary, Luke relates the incident in which Jesus considers his mother rather blessed by hearing the word of God and keeping it. Our Lord regards his mother’s faith in God and fidelity more worthy of praise than the fact she gave birth to him.
PAX
For instance, James, the son of Alpheus was related to Jesus as the son of his mothers sister. This James, however, is a different James than the one whom is identified as the “brother of Jesus” by both Paul (Gal. 1:19), and the Jewish historian Josephus.
The history of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to stem from the protoevangelium of James (formerly referred to as “Nativity of Mary” – also called the infancy Gospel). This work was a second century work – but there is also evidence that Ignatius believed this to be true as well (according to Origen). However, Tertullian disagreed & opined that Mary did not maintain her virginity after Jesus’ birth. Ironically both Origen (who while agreeing Mary did retain her virginity, did not agree she was free from sin) and Tertullian were both declared heretics (on different grounds though – in the case of Tertullian he actually left the church for another Christian sect). On an ancillary note this all occurred before any declaration of primacy at Rome (at this point most of the church still existed in the Hellenic world); and before the concept of Apostolic Succession was formalized under Irenaeus.
I do know this much about the “protoevangelium of James” – it’s authorship has been debunked (it was not written by James).
I admit if Ignatius did believe Mary retained her virginity then that would lend much support to the idea (although it certainly wouldn’t do any damage to the Orthodox idea that Joseph was a widower who brought children into the marriage). However, we’re forced to take Origen’s word for it – at least as far as I can tell at this point in my research.
It’s time to eat – but I’ll get back to this later. I want to explore the Ignatius question deeper, since he was reportedly a disciple of John and was anointed bishop of Antioch by Peter. Thankfully Ignatius did write several epistles (and I think the authorship is pretty reliable) – so I think I’ll start by reading them.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Cousin is possible – however, many commentators believe “brother” is the better view.I agree, that “brethren” does not literally mean disciples in this instance, but it’s more likely the term denotes our Lord’s close cousins or kin who were also disciples of his. When Jesus replies, “Here are my mother and brothers,” he stretches out his hand in the direction towards these disciples who were with Mary outside. Jesus is telling this person that his blood ties with these cousins or relations of his are of no account in comparison with his spiritual ties with them as his disciples. Anyone, including his cousins and relatives, is like an immediate brother or sister to him if he or she does the will of his heavenly Father. The term “brethren” is sometimes used interchangeably in a single passage. On this occasion the person who addresses Jesus means cousin or kin, whereas Jesus means a brother as a sibling, but in a spiritual capacity. With respect to Mary, Luke relates the incident in which Jesus considers his mother rather blessed by hearing the word of God and keeping it. Our Lord regards his mother’s faith in God and fidelity more worthy of praise than the fact she gave birth to him.
PAX
For instance, James, the son of Alpheus was related to Jesus as the son of his mothers sister. This James, however, is a different James than the one whom is identified as the “brother of Jesus” by both Paul (Gal. 1:19), and the Jewish historian Josephus.
The history of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to stem from the protoevangelium of James (formerly referred to as “Nativity of Mary” – also called the infancy Gospel). This work was a second century work – but there is also evidence that Ignatius believed this to be true as well (according to Origen). However, Tertullian disagreed & opined that Mary did not maintain her virginity after Jesus’ birth. Ironically both Origen (who while agreeing Mary did retain her virginity, did not agree she was free from sin) and Tertullian were both declared heretics (on different grounds though – in the case of Tertullian he actually left the church for another Christian sect). On an ancillary note this all occurred before any declaration of primacy at Rome (at this point most of the church still existed in the Hellenic world); and before the concept of Apostolic Succession was formalized under Irenaeus.
I also can say this much about the “protoevangelium of James” – it’s authorship has been debunked (it was not written by James).
I admit if Ignatius did believe Mary retained her virginity then that would lend much support to the idea (although it certainly wouldn’t do any damage to the Orthodox idea that Joseph was a widower who brought children into the marriage). However, we’re forced to take Origen’s word for it.
I just did some rudimentary research & it seems as if Origen went beyond what Ignatius actually wrote. Here’s Ignatius’ words on this matter:
Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world (Chap. XIX – Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html)).
Of course this seems to only point to the virgin birth of Christ; and cannot be logically said to claim perpetual virginity. Here’s how Origen interprets those words:
On this subject, I have found a fine observation in a letter of the martyr Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch after Peter, who fought with the wild beasts during the persecution in Rome. Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, hidden thanks to Joseph and her marriage to him. Her virginity was kept hidden because she was thought to be married. (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 6:3-4).
The first problem with Origen’s theory is it goes beyond what Ignatius actually stated.
The second problem with Origen’s theory is an ancillary one, but still worth noting. Origen uses the words “though to be married” (see the bolded text – emphasis mine). When we turn to Matthew 1:1-17 the Apostle provides us with the genealogy of Joseph. The reasoning of course is that in order for legal title for the throne of David to pass to Jesus He had to be Joseph’s son. In order for this to be true the marriage between Joseph and Mary had to be real. This does not require consummation (since a couple may agree not to have sexual relations); however, it does at least go a long way in debunking the idea that Mary was somehow the spouse of the Holy Spirit (which IMO is an unnecessary theory & quite problematic for a variety of reasons – not limited to the damage it does to the sanctity of Mary and Josephs marriage).
Moreover, again Origen also went too far in his expansion of the meaning he drew from Ignatius’ words in his epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius was clearly only referring the virgin birth, and nothing else.
It seems, therefore, that the development of Marian theology can be traced back to Origen and Irenaeus.
Irenaeus (exact birth date unknown, born sometime in 2nd century AD – 202 AD). Bishop of Lugdunum (Gaul, Roman Empire):
- First great Catholic theologian
- Initiated the idea of one doctrinal authority – Episcopal councils.
- Created the concept of Apostolic Succession.
- Instrumental in refuting the Gnostics and Valentinians.
- The earliest church father to develop an extensive Mariology.
- Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin… By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 3:22).*
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
Hence before the fall God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. It is thought that because after the fall God told Eve she would have pain in child bearing that Cain was her first child. However, many commentators believe this was actually meant to convey the message that her post-fall children would be born problematic (or sinners) – in addition to the plainly revealed message (of physical pain in child birth). Since it is obvious that Eve could bear children before the fall (since God commanded her and Adam to be fruitful and multiply); and since capitulating to the devils trickery was the couples first sin – we can assume they must have obeyed God’s command & at least attempted to have children. So Eve could bear children prior to the fall – however, child rearing was made more painful by God because of her sin (this segways into the mystery of the identity of Cain’s wife, the mother of Enoch, but I won’t touch on that since that since it’s off topic).
So I believe that there were problems in the typologies used by Irenaeus in his Mariology & Origen’s understanding of Ignatius’ mention of the virgin birth of Jesus.
This doesn’t categorically debunk Mariology all together. However, it does show that it’s roots did not originate through a clear and uninterrupted continuum from the Apostles.
In fact the early church view was the Mary retained physical evidence of her virginity even after birthing Christ. Jovinian attempted to counter this belief, however, his position was rejected at the Synod at Milan (390), presided over by Ambrose. Indeed these myths of virginity in the early church were so pervasive that Jerome in his essay Against Helvetius, ch. 21 asserted that Joseph was also a virgin. In fact he went as far to say:
”the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.”
Ezekiel 44:2
- The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.*
However, this verse follows a long discourse concerning the atonement ritual of the Jewish people. When we turn to Ezekiel 43 we see God giving instructions for the atonement ritual. First the priests must make an offering for themselves. Then the offerings are made for the people.
This was an annual ritual (Yom Kippur). Hence the door to the sanctuary remained shut, except that the temple priests (the Levites) entered it annually to perform this ritual.
The proper typology for these chapters in Ezekiel is found in Hebrews, beginning with chapter five. Jesus is our high priest, who offers the perfect sacrifice. He does not need to offer a sacrifice for His own sins – because He is sinless. In Hebrews 7 this idea is fleshed out.
The idea is that perfection could not be attained through the Levitical priesthood. Only through the order of Melchizedek could this be obtained. When there is a change of priesthood there must also be a change of the law (the Levitical code is abolished).
No longer do the Levite Temple priests make annual atonement rituals, entering the sanctuary each year. Now the door is truly shut forever, one perfect sacrifice for all sins.
Hence the typologies drawn between Ezekiel 44:2 and Mary are fallacious; as are the typologies used by Irenaeus (namely, his assumption that Eve remained a virgin before the fall).
Again, I am not trying to use a “poisoned well” argument to debunk all Marian dogma based on the faulty premises and typologies of Irenaeus and other early church fathers.
However, it does challenge many of the ideas that form the root of Marian doctrine. It also shows how the connection was made between virginity and Eve in the first place, which led to a faulty understanding of the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. While certainly there is a typology between Mary and Gen. 3:15, I contend that it was not explained well by Irenaeus; and that indeed his theory was most likely erroneous.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Indeed there is no evidence of this Jewish Temple Virgin practice at all in Second Temple Judaism:
There is no evidence that Jewish parents ever presented their daughters to the Jewish Temple, much less that Judaism has ever possessed a tradition of consecrated Temple virgins.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentation_of_Mary
I actually sourced that information from a Catholic site; but neglected to provide the link (my apologies, I usually always provide my sources, it was probably late & I was tired).
Frankly the only reference in history to Temple Virgins are found in Greco-Roman pagan history (i.e. Vestal Virgins).
I’ve certainly never advanced a claim that Mary remarried – moreover, I also agree that Joseph probably did die at some early point in the Gospel narrative, and obviously sometime after Jesus’ twelfth birthday, however, the idea that Joseph died before the outset of Jesus’ ministry is not conclusive, it’s a theory (unless you have some information I haven’t run across, if so please cite it?).
Actually there are “hints” that Jesus had siblings. Moreover, the Catholic position is not based on reports by those who “traveled and lived with” Mary (see my response to Good Fella at post 283 directly above).
Now there’s a scholarly response?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Good Fella:
Apologies, the link for Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians doesn’t work. Here’s the correct link:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
Apologies, the link for Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians doesn’t work. Here’s the correct link:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I take it that these annonymous commentators are Protestants.
Such commentators have tried to convince people that Psalm 69:8 alludes to Jesus’ uterine brothers. I have already shown in this forum how wrong they are.But I did not see any of the apostles, only James the brother of our Lord.
Galatians 1, 19
We are aware of only two apostles named James: the “son of Zebedee” and the “son of Alphaeus” as stated in the lists of the Apostles. Please see Mark 3:14-19; Matthew 10: 2-4. Neither of these apostles are recorded as sons of Mary and Joseph. :nope:
“The Protoevangelium’s author, as a collector of different stories and traditions, can be considered a very early and valid witness to the Christian people’s faith in the complete holiness and virginity of the Mother of the Lord.”
Luigi Gambero, ‘Mary and the Fathers of the Church’ : Ignatius Press
“But as appears, many even down to our own time, regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some ‘say’ that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and ‘continue virgin’, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. ‘And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth’, says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself and not from conjunction.”
Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 150-215]
Clement of Alexandria is affirming the doctrine of the Virgin Birth by appealing to the oral tradition, that Mary was found to be a virgin after the birth of Jesus, a state which confirms the divine mystery. His source of reference may have been the Protogospel of James. If not, he was aware of a living tradition in the Church that the author of the apocryphal work concerned himself with. The Protoevangelium was rejected as an inspired work because of its dubious authorship and fanciful character, but it should not be discounted altogether as a work of general historical value.
“Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown wrought in silence by God.”
Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Ephesians, XlX’
We have to admit that if Mary did have other children, ‘her virginity’ would not have remained hidden to the prince of this world or her neighbours. Origen appears to have been impressed by how Ignatius expressed his thoughts. Even though the Bishop of Antioch may be referring to the virginal birth of Jesus, which in itself is a divine mystery, and appears to be the case, we have to wonder why he didn’t simply say: “the ‘virgin birth’ was hidden from the prince of this world.” Mary’s virginity is a state or condition, not an event. It could be that Ignatius had Mary’s perpetual virginity at the back of his mind when he was referring to the virgin birth.
It’s true that he never explicitly mentions Mary’s perpetual virginity in his writings, but that’s because his letters are Christological by intention. Moreover, the bishop wrote in the period of implicit faith. He left us no writings that explicitly deal with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The most we have is an allusion in the form of an invocation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when he greets his readers. Surely Ignatius believed in the Trinity, although he never articulated this key doctrine in his letters.
PAX
S
Sunwater
Guest
Here is soemthing else to chew on. In pagan times when a firstborn child was born with what was refered to as a veil, the mother was said to have been a virgin at conception. This was when a child came out covered in a thin white membrame, much like a kitten. As well, these children were destined to be very gifted mediums.
Just a little soemthing to throw in the salad.
Just a little soemthing to throw in the salad.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Good Fella:
**1) Brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.”
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him (Mark 6:3).
Moreover, the idea that Mary retained physical evidence of virginity (i.e. her hymen remained intact, referred to by the ancients as “virginitas in partu”), at least as far as I can tell – is no longer ingrained in Catholic dogma (although I’m not 100% sure).
This idea could be based on the notion (which flows from Ireneaus’ typological nexus drawn between Mary and Eve) that Mary did not experience pain in child birth (since Mary was brought forth sinless she did not share in the punishment of Eve, which was increased pain in child rearing).
None of the sources I used were protestant per se. I looked directly at Ignatius’ Epistle and used Origen’s own words. I looked at some Wiki articles & I also cite checked the authorities they relied on.
Here are some references to men named James in scripture:
- "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).
- James, son of Alphaeus: Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).
- Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matt. 27:56).
- Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John (Matt 4:21).
- Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (John 19:25).
**1) Brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
- James the younger (son of Alphaeus): his brothers were Jose, Salome
- James, son of Zebedee: his brother was John**
Yes, however, we should also consider Josephus & Eusebius of great historical value:
In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.”
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him (Mark 6:3).
Moreover, the idea that Mary retained physical evidence of virginity (i.e. her hymen remained intact, referred to by the ancients as “virginitas in partu”), at least as far as I can tell – is no longer ingrained in Catholic dogma (although I’m not 100% sure).
This idea could be based on the notion (which flows from Ireneaus’ typological nexus drawn between Mary and Eve) that Mary did not experience pain in child birth (since Mary was brought forth sinless she did not share in the punishment of Eve, which was increased pain in child rearing).
I still find this argument unpersuasive. Her virginity, with regard to the incarnation of Christ, was hidden from the devil. However, to go beyond that (or infer that Ignatius went beyond that) seems to be folly. What I can see is that various rumors existed during this early period. This is not the sort of evidence that should be relied on for creation of doctrine.
I see this much differently. If God crowned Mary the queen of heaven, co-redeemer, mediatrix of “all” graces, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit surely men like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome would have wrote more than a few sentences about her. Surely the Gospel authors, Paul, and all the rest would have mentioned her more than merely a few times.
R
rinnie
Guest
Hey come on, when are we going to find out what the OP had in mind here for an answer. I need to know if I was right?
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
I also firmly believe that Angela. Apart from other reasons for believing Jesus had no other siblings, the fact that He gave His mother to John both for safekeeping (and care-a widow alone had it hard in those days) and for the reason of spiritual gift of His mother as our mother by way of our adoption into His family.
“blessed Mary ever Virgin” would not apply if this were the case.
Also please read Ezekiel 44 1-3
"He brought me back to the outer east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me “this gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it, since Yahweh the God of Israel has been through it. And so it must be kept shut. The Prince Himself, however, may sit there to take his meal in the presence of Yahweh. He is to enter and leave through the porch of the gate.”
An appelation of the Blessed virgin Mary is “Gate of heaven”
“Virgin of Nazareth” etc.
We also remember the typology of the OT and NT.
GraceAngel.
R
Reformed
Guest
Physical brothers or cousins?
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers - Mark 3
31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers [2] are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Footnotes
[1] 3:2 Greek him
[2] 3:32 Other early manuscripts add and your sisters
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers - Mark 3
31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers [2] are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Footnotes
[1] 3:2 Greek him
[2] 3:32 Other early manuscripts add and your sisters
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The James of Matthew 13 and Mark 15 is the same person: James (the less) the son of Alphaeus (Cleopas), brother of Joseph and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) and cousin of Jesus (Acts 9:27; Gal 1:19]. To go beyond the lists of the apostles begs the question. :yup:
There are only James the son of Alphaeus (the less) and James the son of Zebedee. James the less is the one mentioned in Acts 9:27 and Galatians 1:19.
I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord’s brother. [NIV]
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. [NASB]
But I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord’s brother. [ESV]
But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord’s brother. [NKJV]
Paul is not saying that he saw none of the other apostles except the Lord’s uterine brother. The term “brother” denotes kinship. Paul was a Jew, so he could have expressed himself by using a Semitic idiom. He did not necessarily have to use the Greek word for cousin.
In his ‘Antiquities’ Josephus is referring to the execution of James the son of Zebedee (c.40-44 A.D.) and uterine brother of the apostle John. His usage of the term “brother” denotes apostleship. The Catholic Church commemorates his martyrdom on July 25.
- Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, ‘who is said to have been’ the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.
- Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.
Eusebius, ‘Church History, Book 3, 20: 1,2’
The resurrection of Christ started out as a “rumour”.
It’s questionable whether the Evangelists and Paul actually fully comprehended what they wrote. No prophet is the interpreter of his prophecy. Divine revelation is only materially complete in Scripture. Sacred Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in the written word. Jesus founded a Church and sent his Paraclete to gradually unfold the true mysteries contained in the scriptures.
PAX
- Status