I heard a very upsetting theory of the bible

[katy]

On a related note, I was told by a Korean friend that Hangul (Korean) has no specific word for cousin. If you want to speak specifically of what we would call cousin, you must say “my mother’s sister’s daughter” or some such. “Brothers” and “sisters” don’t have to be necessarily the children of the same mother and father.

 

[Mystophilus]

ElizabethJoy:

I would like to repeat my question as to where you found scripture that says that Jesus’ parents and brothers and sisters found Him in the temple teaching.

At a guess, the passage meant was Mark 3:31-4, which is not quite in the temple, but is otherwise the event in question.

 

[Mystophilus]

katy:

On a related note, I was told by a Korean friend that Hangul (Korean) has no specific word for cousin. If you want to speak specifically of what we would call cousin, you must say “my mother’s sister’s daughter” or some such. “Brothers” and “sisters” don’t have to be necessarily the children of the same mother and father.

Good point.
In the Greek text, the word for “brother” in all of the “Jesus’ brothers” locations is “adelphos”. Jesus himself shows that it can be applied to people who are not immediate blood-relatives when he uses it to describe his disciples and those who ‘do the will of God’ (Mt 12:49-50, et al.), and the NT subsequently uses the word for the members of the Christian church. It is also the word used regarding loving one’s brother, find a mote in one’s brother’s eye, etc. According to what I have seen thus far, this is the only word ever used for ‘brother’ in the NT.

It is also used in the Septuagint, where, for instance, it describes Moses’ relationship to the Hebrew whom he saw being mistreated by an Egyptian.

Outside of scripture, it was used for all manner of associations.

This further supports the argument that the usage in the “Jesus’ brothers” passages does not necessarily mean that they are literally Jesus’ own blood relatives, the children of Mary, which is presumably why the early Church could believe that they were not.

 

[Mystophilus]

Mystophilus:

I am going to disagree with you.

And when it rains, it pours.

Basically, it works like this. Let’s assume that you have two readings of a text which refers to a historical event or situation. One reading is a simple, literal one. The other is an interpretation which differs from the first because it is based upon the testimony of commentators in the centuries immediately following the production of the work, commentators who do not take certain terms within the text as being literal.

From a literary/historical point of view, neither of these readings is described as “the correct one”, but the second is the one which has the greater historical credibility.

 

[allhers]

Brings to mind also, Isiah…and the Virgin shall be with child, and bear a son…chapter 7 I believe, not sure of the verse.
Plus, she is the Blessed Virgin Mary, a Perpetual Virgin.

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you

I tend to put the burden of proof on them.
Ask them to give evidence of why Jesus gave Mary to John to be taken care of if he had physical siblings? What would He be trying to show through this act? That Mary is our Mother as well and we are to accept her as so?
Does’nt it seem odd to you that it is always we who have to prove everything and they don’t have to explain why they observe things that are not written?
Ask them tell what the unwritten traditions are that we told to keep?
Ask them why they Celibrate Christmas on Dec. 25th for example?
That too is not in the Bible.

Ron

 

[Rebecca_New]

Larry B:

Individuals get theories like this from their own private interpretation of scripture. You can only show them what the Church teaches and why based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Pray for their conversion. The Holy Spirit can move hearts.

Larry

 

[Rebecca_New]

You and I are Catholic, and we are taught that The Blessed Virgin Mary is just that-how blessed we are that we don’t have to wonder about truths.

 

[Rebecca_New]

Liberian:

Stylus,

First I have to ask, what do you mean by “prove”? Something like this is going to come down to what one person said versus what another person said, or else you will have to infer from theological considerations. Everybody involved died almost two thousand years ago.

Theological considerations include the idea that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and I doubt that God would put up with somebody else trying to have relations with His wife.

• Liberian

My reply was that the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of Mary, how could She be tempted by anyone else.

 

[BibleReader]

Stylus:

A friend of mine recently told me, that Mary had children after Jesus. I refused to believe but where do people get theories like this, and above all how can I prove them wrong?

Two ways: The Long Way; and the Short Cut.

The Short Cut: The Bible speaks at the plaintext, or literal, level, and at the *sensus plenior *or “fuller sense” level, usually at both levels at the same time.

At John 19:26-27, the following occurs as Jesus hangs from the cross:

*26 **When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” ****27 ******Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. ***

What is going on here at the plaintext level is clear: With Jesus dead, aging Mary will need a caretaker. Jesus appoints John the Apostle her caretaker.

Question: If Mary had other children, why do so?

The Long Way: The verse most often cited by our Protestant brothers and sisters to prove that Mary had sex with someone after Jesus, so that her womb was supposedly a very busy place – like “Grand Central Station” – after Jesus, is Mark 6:3, in the story of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth…

*1 **He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples. **2 **When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! ****3 ****Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. **4 **Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.” *

With Greek re-insterted it says, 3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the adelphos [singular] of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his adelphes [plural] here with us?"

At first bite, that seems pretty clear, doesn’t it.

But let’s note some things about this story…

First, where was Jesus’ “native place”? Nazareth in Galilee. See Matthew 21:11, Mark 1:9.

Remember that: Nazareth is IN Galilee.

Also, remeber the names of two of those “brothers,” James and Joses.

Now, flip your Bible over to Mark 15:40-41…

*40 **There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. **41 **These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. There were also many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. *

Look, look, look! There is another Mary, not Mary the mother of Jesus, who had two sons ***James ***and Joses!

And this Mary – and her sons, too? – were with Jesus in Galilee.

In other words, Mark 15:40-41 dramatizes that these “brothers” of Jesus were in fact the sons of another “Mary,” undoubtedly a relative of Jesus’ mother Mary.

Why would they have been accompanying Jesus’ mother Mary in the gospels? See Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19. Because Mary had no other children of her own!

Now stand back and look at the Long Way and the Short Cut panoramically: They fit together, don’t they?

 

[Liberian]

Rebecca New:

My reply was that the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of Mary, how could She be tempted by anyone else.

(LOL)

Rebecca,

You are absolutely right!

It reminds me of a story from when St. Therese of Lisieux was taking her final vows, there was an unseasonable snowfall as she was coming out of the church, coating everything with a beautiful white. She exclaimed “What other husband could do such a thing for his bride?”

• Liberian

 

[Mystophilus]

sirknightron:

I tend to put the burden of proof on them.

I tend to be them.

 

[jcrichton]

Mystophilus:

A list of early Christian writers who believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (from here):
The Protoevangelium of James [A.D. ?120-150?]
Origen [A.D. 248]… Pope Leo I [A.D. 450].

That leaves us with a choice, then. Either we read the C1st writers in isolation (sola scriptura: Mary had other children), or we accept the C2nd-5th ideas as modifying our reading of the Gospels (tradition: Mary did not have other children).

***Hi, Mystophilus!

I think that your example is the clearest to demonstrate this perpetual problem… Scripture does not Teach “sola scriptura…” as a matter of fact the Teaching holds:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15–see also 3:6)***

Rejecting the Teachings of the Church on grounds of “new” or “scholar” or “theologian” discovery is not only unproductive and divisive but it is clearly anti-Christian as it goes against Paul’s own teaching to search/test everything and keep what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)… when Jesus told us that the other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, would come to bring the fullness of Truth (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-13) He had only established that His Church would be built… it was the Holy Spirit who guided, and still guides, the Church that Christ built! (Acts)

As the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), the Church teaches from Scripture and Sacred Traditions as the Holy Spirit Reveals and Teaches about the Kingdom of God. No personal interpretation or discovery/finding that excludes nearly two thousand years of Teachings can be authentic since it is, in essence, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence… sadly, the need to deny the Church’s Authority blinds even the most Scripture-based scholar!.. this reminds me of Jesus’ Word (John 16:2-3).

The writers of the New Testament expressed themselves in terms that were familiar to them… some of these terms can be taken out of context, as in the example of the person who quoted Scripture as claiming that when Jesus was 12 years old His parents and siblins looked for Him… clearly not Scripturaly based!
…it also allows for reason and logic to go awry as personal interpretation uses selective reasoning to explain Scripture:

• Scripture does not speak about Mary’s “other children” whenever they went to the Temple–specifically when Jesus was 12… Scripture does not tell us anything about Mary having “other children”–what bad parents they must have been to splurge on Jesus while ignoring the rest!
• And if the statements mean “blood” relations, then why did Jesus (other than out of spite) on His death passed on the responsibility of caring for His Mom to someone other than Mary’s “other sons/daughters?”… was that not clearly against the Jewish culture/religious Teachings?.. Mary’s “other children” would not not only have had the legal obligation but also the Spiritual obligation of caring for Mary (Matthew 15:4-9; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Timothy 5:4-8, 16)–did Jesus Teach a contradiction by bestowing the guardianship of His Mom to someone other than Mary’s own flesh and blood? …is it not more logical and Scriptural that Jesus’ disciples were the closest people He and Mary had, specially the “loved one of the Lord?”
• James being the brother of John (Galatians 1:19), could his relationship to John not be the reason why Scripture refers to James as the Lord’s brother?.. otherwise, is Scripture not going against itself as it states that not even his own brothers believed Him? (John 7:1-7) …when did one of his non-believing brethren become one of His Apostles?.. is it not more reasonable to understand that John’s brother became Jesus’ brother at the moment that Jesus ceded custody of Mary to John–in effect, making John, Mary’s surrogate son? (Clearly the language and custom would not reflect such technical relationship… it would simply call Mary, John’s Mom and John, Mary’s son–you can check for I am not a linguist!)

As Christ, the Holy Spirit did not reveal everything all at once to the fledgling Church… it took a few years for the Way to be known as Christians… so it is not surprising that in matters of Doctrine the Apostles taught the Gospel of Christ emphasizing those points that needed clarification or in-depth Teaching, without attempting to write Epistles to address doctrines that were not in question (such as Christ’s Divinity, the Trinity, Transubstantiation, suicide, homosexuality, use/abuse of drugs and others… (2 Thessalonias 2:15; 3:16)

God Bless!

Angel

 

[mercygate]

Important theologians who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity:

Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Cranmer

Also Cromwell, John Wesley . . .

 

[anawim]

We know that James was the son of Alphaeus from

Matt.10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus

Mark 3:18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome,

So if James was not Jesus’ brother by Mary, then it’s reasonable to think that none of the others were either.

 

[jay_2]

oh my god as if what ever if mary was not a virgin then she would not appare and she has mary will and is a virgin dont listen to rubbish like that our lady is a virgin

 

[BibleReader]

jay 2:

oh my god as if what ever if mary was not a virgin then she would not appare and she has mary will and is a virgin dont listen to rubbish like that our lady is a virgin

Hi, jay2. You probably should not be taking God’s name in vain.

 

[Mystophilus]

First of all, my apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this.

jcrichton:

Scripture does not Teach “sola scriptura…”

Agreed. Indeed, I would say that it teaches the opposite.

Rejecting the Teachings of the Church on grounds of “new” or “scholar” or “theologian” discovery is not only unproductive and divisive but it is clearly anti-Christian as it goes against Paul’s own teaching to search/test everything and keep what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

If we are to test everything, then we are to test the teachings of the Church. Thus, a scholar’s disagreement with established doctrine is only unproductive when the Church is right and the scholar is wrong. When the scholar is right, then s/he has a duty to teach the Truth to the Church. Of course, this does not validate wholesale rejection of other, unrelated doctrines.

As the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), the Church teaches from Scripture and Sacred Traditions as the Holy Spirit Reveals and Teaches about the Kingdom of God. No personal interpretation or discovery/finding that excludes nearly two thousand years of Teachings can be authentic since it is, in essence, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence

The Greek of the text mentioned does not say “the pillar”: it only says “pillar”. While this is not terribly significant in itself, especially because Greek did not need to use definite articles for complements, it becomes more interesting in light of the fact that “stuloi” (pillars) are rarely found alone. This does not actually prove anything, of course. Nevertheless, the Church is not defined within Scripture as the only source of Truth, and that is unsurprising. The Church is composed entirely of human beings, beings designed to be imperfect. It is supposed to make mistakes.

Scripture does not speak about Mary’s “other children” whenever they went to the Temple–specifically when Jesus was 12… Scripture does not tell us anything about Mary having “other children”–what bad parents they must have been to splurge on Jesus while ignoring the rest!

There is a lemma (a missing proposition) which would apparently read “and, if there were other children, they would have been mentioned”. Such a proposition would be false, because C1st writers were not modern reporters: they felt no need to be precise about the attendance of any given event, hence, for example, the difference between Gospels in the lists of people at the Crucifixion and the Empty Tomb.

And if the statements mean “blood” relations, then why did Jesus (other than out of spite) on His death pass on the responsibility of caring for His Mom to someone other than Mary’s “other sons/daughters?”

This is a very good point.

James being the brother of John (Galatians 1:19), could his relationship to John not be the reason why Scripture refers to James as the Lord’s brother?

This is the other James. John’s brother was dead, having been killed on the orders of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) in about AD 43 (clearly before Herod’s death in AD 44), which was four to fourteen years before Galatians is believed to have been written.

the Holy Spirit did not reveal everything all at once to the fledgling Church… so it is not surprising that in matters of Doctrine the Apostles taught the Gospel of Christ emphasizing those points that needed clarification or in-depth Teaching, without attempting to write Epistles to address doctrines that were not in question (such as Christ’s Divinity, the Trinity, Transubstantiation, suicide, homosexuality, use/abuse of drugs and others… (2 Thessalonias 2:15; 3:16)

Because we know that, at the beginning, the doctrine of the Church was imperfect, we have cause to be aware of the probability that it remains imperfect, even if that imperfection may be tiny. This is the reason for continued enquiry.

 

[Magicsilence]

If your wife had given birth to God incarnate, would you touch her?

 

[Mystophilus]

Magicsilence:

If your wife had given birth to God incarnate, would you touch her?

You haven’t met my wife.