"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[guanophore]

well, it is a fact that the scriptures designate certain people as the brothers of Christ (in a fashion that doesn’t mean spiritual brothers)…and so you must explain away that evidence…and the question is whether you do an adequate job of it…and the answer is that you don’t for many learned scholars and so that is where your treasured circle comes in (yet again).

Yes, this is a fact. It is also a fact that they did not come from the womb of Mary. How can these two equally important parts of the Truth be reconciled? It is not necessary to jettison part of the Truth, Radical.

It is equally unnecessary to reject the promises of Chrst, and to create fruitless circles for yourself.

The Aramaic language doesn’t have a word for “cousins” would be a lot more significant if any of the gospels were written in Aramaic…we assert that the gospel authors were inspired (but apparently, from that POV, none of the four was inspired enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”…is that your position or do you hold to the “earlier sons of Joseph theory”?)

Matthew, which contains the references so problematic to those who have departed from the Apsotolic Faith, was first written in Aramaic, and as the historical record shows “each one translated it as best he could”. Those who translated it were also Catholics, and held the Catholic faith that Mary had no other children. I suppose, if they were not, and they realized that people would come along 1600 years after the fact and try to exptrapolate the faith from it’s pages, perhaps they would have been more careful? It is difficult to say. None of them ever envisioned the writings of the Church would be taken ouside of the faith of the Church.

As far as your question at the end, it is the same in either case. Hebrews were a clan culture, and everyone in their clan that was too close for marriage was considered a brother or sister - a near kinsman. From a practical point of view, Hebrews did not marry thieir half siblings or stepsiblings any more than they would their cousins, so they are all considered brethers and sisters.

Doubtless they grew up in the same house as Jesus or in HIs villiage, and if they were older son’s of Joseph, then it would make a lot more sense out of them coming to fetch their cracked little brother and take him home.

this of course is a misrepresentation of the true issue…slanted to ridicule the non-Catholic position.

I guess we see the “true issue” differently, dont’ we? You have to admit, at the bottom line, it boils down to whether Jesus was really able to fulfill His promises.

He must be very weak, or disinterested if He was unable to shed light on this matter for 1600 years. Somehow the powerful Jesus of Revelation who was ready, willing, and able to correct His church got a really bad influenza or something that incapacitated Him for about a millenia and a half?

I agree, it is a riduculous idea. It also presupposes that, in all those centuries, there was not a single faithful Christian through whom God was able to communicate to His Church.

The issue is not one involving trust in Jesus...the issue concerns the proper understanding of Christ's promise and whether the CC is the one true Church.

I agree with all of these things. I can also see that we understand the promises of Christ differently. You believe He made this promise to those who have left the faith of the Apostles, and I believe He made it to them, and those who embraced the One Faith which was committed once for all to the saints. I believe His promise was made to those in unity with the Apostolic faith, and you believe it carries across to those who have left that unity.

For you, after you have employed the treasured circle described above, all you need to do is have the CC: a) declare what Christ said that he would do for the one true Church; and b) declare itself to be the one true Church…and then you are set.

That is the problem with your fallacious circle, though Radical. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. He built the foundation of that ONE CHURCH, and deposited once for all the Teaching to the Church through the Apostles. It is His Church. Inasmuch as this is the case, no human being can come along and found an ecclesial community and claim that they are part of it, or that He founded it.

So you can see how I say it looks on the surface as though it is about Mary, but it is really not. It is about whether you believe Jesus did what He said He would do.

For the rest of us…they are merely self-serving declarations w/o substance…and those are the things that shouldn’t be trusted

This is your perogative, of course. People have been saying that the God of Abraham cannot be trusted ever since He revealed Himself to mankind.

 

[guanophore]

actually, that definition is derived directly from Paul’s letters

Exactly. Anyone who arrives at a defninition of the Church through derivation of Paul’s letters will result with a deficient understanding.

no, b/c two of the considerations are: 1) beyond scripture, is there likely anything that the apostles believed and taught? and

Where is this in Paul’s letters?

1. what is the most likely meaning of the various apostolic teachings found in scripture?

Where does Scripture state that it is to be interpreted according to Radicals’ idea of what it “most likely” means?

nope, b/c I already hold to the apostolic faith and

I know you believe you do, and I also believe that you are clinging to the limited portion of the One Faith as best you can. I commend you for your tenacity.

I have shown you how the subject matters involved are very different and how the development is very different such that you are comparing apples to orangutans…

No, Radical, you have not. The method used for development of doctrine is the same now as it was at the council of Jerusalem. Nothing has changed. The doctrines of Mary were arrived at the same way the Trinity and the canon of scripture were defined.

I also asked (someone) how exactly a belief in the PVM would develop? It seems to me that it was a historical reality or that it wasn’t, but that was just another question of mine that has gone unanswered…In any event, I do not view any of those items (Sunday worship, NT canon, doctrine of Trinity etc.) as being above review…it is that the PVM doesn’t hold up well under review…nowhere nearly as well as the other items.

Well, if you wish to review the doctrines of the faith, I commend you. May your studies lead you unswervingly to the Truth.

It is hard to get questions about history answered when one is unable to accept the testimony of history.

As a learning exercises, though I commend the develoment of the title “Theotokos”. If you study this, you will not be hindered by your prejudice against the Roman communion, and you will learn a great deal about how doctrine is developed.

actually, that definition is derived directly from Paul’s letters

Exactly. Anyone who arrives at a defninition of the Church through derivation of Paul’s letters will result with a deficient understanding.

no, b/c two of the considerations are: 1) beyond scripture, is there likely anything that the apostles believed and taught? and

Where is this in Paul’s letters?

1. what is the most likely meaning of the various apostolic teachings found in scripture?

Where does Scripture state that it is to be interpreted according to Radicals’ idea of what it “most likely” means?

nope, b/c I already hold to the apostolic faith and

I know you believe you do, and I also believe that you are clinging to the limited portion of the One Faith as best you can. I commend you for your tenacity.

I have shown you how the subject matters involved are very different and how the development is very different such that you are comparing apples to orangutans…

No, Radical, you have not. The method used for development of doctrine is the same now as it was at the council of Jerusalem. Nothing has changed. The doctrines of Mary were arrived at the same way the Trinity and the canon of scripture were defined.

I also asked (someone) how exactly a belief in the PVM would develop? It seems to me that it was a historical reality or that it wasn’t, but that was just another question of mine that has gone unanswered…In any event, I do not view any of those items (Sunday worship, NT canon, doctrine of Trinity etc.) as being above review…it is that the PVM doesn’t hold up well under review…nowhere nearly as well as the other items.

Well, if you wish to review the doctrines of the faith, I commend you. May your studies lead you unswervingly to the Truth.

It is hard to get questions about history answered when one is unable to accept the testimony of history.

As a learning exercises, though I commend the develoment of the title “Theotokos”. If you study this, you will not be hindered by your prejudice against the Roman communion, and you will learn a great deal about how doctrine is developed.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical
well, apart from your use of “successors” (which isn’t in scripture and which carries a lot of baggage),

I find the above argument so absurd by Protestants. I can bet all of my retirement money the church Radical attends has a pastor/leading minister who if he/she were to die or move on,someone would succeed him or her. A friend of mine is non-Catholic and told me:

We do not have one leading pastor,but a committee or panel of leaders.

Okay,but does that mean no one will replace one of the members or does it cease to exist once they all die or leave? How is your church to continue if no one leads?

It is nothing but a double standard. It is good enough for them,but not for Catholics/Orthodoxs who have done same for centuries before Protestants.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Radical,

Going back to the topic of ‘if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters…’, would you show us where your belief about Mary was taught throughout the years, to present day?

You latched onto Tertullian, but failed to go any further in time…

 

[Radical]

What is the most likely meaning? Why the fuss over the meaning?

so that we know what God meant when he inspired the gospels…

The entire issue revolves around a Jewish girl and her culture. The meanining lies with the original meaning what those terms meant in those days,not the current applications of “what is the most likely” meaning.

obviously the idea behind “what is the most likely meaning” is to determine “what did it mean to the guy who wrote it”

It is much more difficult to admit error and much easier to remain in denial.

have you heard of that invention called the mirror?

Likelihood to what? I find it so odd not single word of bros and sisters after long Jesus death? The brothers and sisters of the Son of God and history is completely silent about them?

you mean not a single word apart from the mention in scripture of James the brother of the Lord…and the other 3 brothers and the sisters? or did you mean not a single word apart from Josephus mentioning James the brother of Jesus :
…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…
or did you mean not a single word apart from Hegesippus 170 AD (as quoted by Eusebius) writing this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

Not only off scripture,but…TRADITION something many Protestants flat out reject.The church also used TRADITION to defend against and fight off heresies,not only scripture.

yep…and that is the problem…you have a 1800 year old tradition wrt a 2000 year old event…do the math.

Silence is your weapon? But funny how your own term can be used against you. Again,tell me where it says Mary without a doubt gave birth to multiple children? Hhmmm…smells like silence to me-eh? Or better yet,pure conjecture.

yep, silence in the historical record up to the wild tales of the Protoevangelium of James and the writings of Tertullian are what we both have to deal with. As mentioned earlier, Jerome tried to appeal to tradition (WRT the PVM) from before that time and failed miserably. That silence, however, is more detrimental to your case than to mine for these reasons:

1. if the PVM was a reality, it would have been there to mention and use against the Gnostics…and guess what? the PVM isn’t mentioned in that time period, and until the claim is produced one could not expect that it would be addressed
2. if brethren of Jesus were a reality, they would have been there to mention…and guess what?..the scriptures and other sources do mention brothers
3. we both know that by the 5th century the PVM was very much accepted by those running the show and so from the 5th to 10 centuries (for example), if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) declaring the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of preservation and if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) denying the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of the fire (fortunately Tertullian was just too respected to destroy)

You should note that points 1 and 3 actually suggest that if my view is correct, then we should expect such a silence.

 

[Nicea325]

so that we know what God meant when he inspired the gospels

…

Precisely why I am not a Protestant: Always trying to bring God down to the mere human level. There is no good reason to limit God to the extent of our understanding, no matter how hard it might be to fathom.

obviously the idea behind “what is the most likely meaning” is to determine “what did it mean to the guy who wrote it”

The issue does not lie what the guy who wrote it,but the END-USER who has a poor understanding (case in point: Radical).You along with fundamentalist simply want to impose reason and logic to an ancient belief and Tradition: Mary’s perpetual virginity.

have you heard of that invention called the mirror?

Yeah…trying looking it at once and accept you adhere to a fundamentalist belief. I’ll ask again,where does the Bible state Mary gave birth to other children or makes reference to: Mary the mother of Bobby,Steve,Susie,etc? When you decide to stop dancing,let me know.

Quote:
Likelihood to what? I find it so odd not single word of bros and sisters after long Jesus death? The brothers and sisters of the Son of God and history is completely silent about them?

you mean not a single word apart from the mention in scripture of James the brother of the Lord…and the other 3 brothers and the sisters? or did you mean not a single word apart from Josephus mentioning James the brother of Jesus :

WRONG! Another poor interpretation by you. The above has been debunked so many times by others and especially by elvisman. So try another angle.

…
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

Been there… done that with you and others in the past. Others here already climbed this tree with you. The James issue is exactly that: dead! Another debunked issue. As I said,denial is much easier to deal with than admit error.

.

yep…and that is the problem…you have a 1800 year old tradition wrt a 2000 year old event…do the math.

Yes…indeed,thanks for reminding me, many Protestants cannot add. Cannot separate the 2,000 year old event with the 2,000 year old Tradition. I do a recall God choice her from the beginning and told by an angel.

Quote:
Silence is your weapon? But funny how your own term can be used against you. Again,tell me where it says Mary without a doubt gave birth to multiple children? Hhmmm…smells like silence to me-eh? Or better yet,pure conjecture.

yep, silence in the historical record up to the wild tales of the Protoevangelium of James and the writings of Tertullian are what we both have to deal with. As mentioned earlier, Jerome tried to appeal to tradition (WRT the PVM) from before that time and failed miserably. That silence, however, is more detrimental to your case than to mine for these reasons:

I love your dance,now how about answering me? Again,tell me where it says Mary without a doubt gave birth to multiple children?

1. if the PVM was a reality, it would have been there to mention and use against the Gnostics…and guess what? the PVM isn’t mentioned in that time period, and until the claim is produced one could not expect that it would be addressed

Oh, I see. How interesting. Please tell me where ONE Apostle explains and defines the three distinct persons of the Trinitarian doctrine against the Gnostics? Oh guess what? The Trinitarian doctrine is not defined and explained by any of the 12. Therefore,it must be false since it was not defined from the get-go.

1. if brethren of Jesus were a reality, they would have been there to mention…and guess what?..the scriptures and other sources do mention brothers

Unbelievable! I guess you never bother to read how the terms 'BROTHERS" and “UNTIL” has been explained to you a billion times.But no,you still insist on your conjecture Jesus had more siblings. ONE MORE TIME: Where does it state (A REALITY WITHOUT A DOUBT) Mary did in fact give birth to other children? Still waiting Radical. Where does it say: Mary the mother of: Bobby,Susie,etc?

1. we both know that by the 5th century the PVM was very much accepted by those running the show and so from the 5th to 10 centuries (for example), if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) declaring the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of preservation and if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) denying the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of the fire (fortunately Tertullian was just too respected to destroy)

Thanks for expressing your opinions,but I’ll ask you again:
Where does it state (A REALITY) Mary did in fact give birth to other children?

You should note that points 1 and 3 actually suggest that if my view is correct, then we should expect such a silence.

Key word: Suggest.No offense,but the only person you are trying to convince is yourself,because nothing you have said has changed an iota of history.

You are revisionist Radical and that is not accurate history; moreover,but history according to Radical. I do not and will not accept it.

 

[placido]

The Catholic Church did not keep any documents that did not support them. Why would they?

But your church did not keep those documents either … or was it not founded yet?

 

[placido]

The Church kept the Bible through hundreds and hundreds of years, prior to the Protestant reformation, yet Protestant believe it’s against the Church? Too many wrongs in your argument.

Yes, if the Catholic Church destroyed all documents contrary to its doctrines, why did it not destroy the Bible? Is it not supposed to be contrary to Catholic doctrines?

 

[placido]

There are lots of records, not destroyed, where segments of the Catholic Church put together Bibles without all of the books. They attempted to add books like the Shepherd of Hermes for example and remove Revelation, 2nd Peter, John 2 & 3, and other canonical books. However, it was unsuccessful. So actually there is documented history of attempts to add to scripture and delete certain books. In that case, the segments that did were not successful. I am not suggesting that all Catholic Churches attempted that but clearly many did.

That one is of course grabbing at straws. There is always a debate before a decision is take. And before a decision is taken people are free to hold different views … but you see that as attempts to add to Scriptures, meanwhile ignoring the fact that it was Catholic Council that eventually solved the problem.

 

[placido]

They cannot be found. What can be found are first found a hundred years later. In the protoevangelium stating they are the sons of Joseph.

So, you agree with the protoevangelium that they were, indeed, sons of Joseph and Mary? Are you now going to propose the protoevangelium be included in the Canon because it contains truth that is not found in the Bible?

Never said the Vatican destroyed anything…just to be accurate. It seems that some hold to a large conspiracy. Obviously not. Time took care of that. The theory that people added legends and myths around people they cared about is quite plausible.

Yet you ignore that fact that those legends (like the protoevangelium you believe in) were excluded from the Canon … by whom? The Catholic Church of course!

 

[placido]

Okay, so lets be accurate. The Catholic view is the early church was not on top of things enough to know that John wrote Revelation, Peter wrote 2nd Peter, John wrote 2 and 3rd John, thought other books like Shepherd of Hermes were inspired but mained all accurate knowledge about the virginity of Mary…just trying to be clear here.

Different local churches had different number of books … because the Canon of Scriptures was not defined yet. But, it seems, your theology obligates you to see a sinister “Master Plan” about the issue.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Here we go again:

Looking at those who were at the foot of the cross.

Mattew 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

Mark 15:[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

John 19:[25] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Matthew has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me.

John has: Mary(Jesus’ mother), His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

We can eliminate the common Mary(s) that we know of-Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene.

Once you eliminate them you have:

Matthew: Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark: Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me

John: His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

(Jerome holds that Clopas-which is also transliterated into Greek as Alphaeus(Matt 10:3)-was the brother of Joseph, Jesus’ foster-father.)

So all that is left is Salo’me, who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who is the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother.

Therefore James and John, the sons of the other Mary and Clopas, are COUSINS of Jesus-not brothers.

 

[LOCO]

well, it is a fact that the scriptures designate certain people as the brothers of Christ (in a fashion that doesn’t mean spiritual brothers)…and so you must explain away that evidence… The Aramaic language doesn’t have a word for “cousins” would be a lot more significant if any of the gospels were written in Aramaic…we assert that the gospel authors were inspired (but apparently, from that POV, none of the four was inspired enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”…
.

The New Testament isn’t ordinary Greek.

Parts of it are translations from Aramaic. Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

There was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

Some Westerners surprise me with their ignorance of other cultures and their family structures. Jewish familiy structure of the time, was very similar to African, Asian and Pacific families of today.

I am a Pacific Islander, I introduce my ‘biological cousins’ as my brother and sister when I introduce them to others and they do the same when introducing me.

My parents introduce my ‘cousins’ as their ‘daughters/sons’ to others.

My ‘biological auntie’ introduces me and my brothers as her ‘daughter and sons’ to others.

I refer to my aunties and uncles as ‘big mummy and big daddy’ if they are older than my parents or ‘small mummy and small daddy’ if they are younger than my parents.

My extended family is as close to me as your ‘nuclear immediate family’ is to you (i.e. mum/dad & kids).

TheNT needs to be interpreted within the context of the day. At the time extended families lived together, were very close and referred to each other as such.

I view my ‘ultra extended family’ as other Catholics and I hope one day that my ‘separated brethren’ i.e. non Catholics will COME HOME one day.

Remember BLESSED PETER TOROT of Papua New Guinea
(Martyred by the Japanese during WWII for daring to continue practising his faith). Beatified by POPE JPII

 

[guanophore]

so that we know what God meant when he inspired the gospels…
obviously the idea behind “what is the most likely meaning” is to determine “what did it mean to the guy who wrote it”

Yes. Catholics know what it means because we have received the Apostolic Teaching through those He sent to deliver it. Reformed Christians extract the meaning devoid of the frame of reference of those who wrote it. That is why we understand it differently.

you mean not a single word apart from the mention in scripture of James the brother of the Lord…and the other 3 brothers and the sisters?

Yes, that is what we mean. These children are from another Mary, referred to in Scripture as the “sister” of our Lord’s mother. Near kindred, yes, and brethren of our Lord, but not from the womb He came from.

yep…and that is the problem…you have a 1800 year old tradition wrt a 2000 year old event…do the math.

It is not a problem for us, as we are confident that God is able to preserve His word where He has placed it.

Since the One Faith was deposited “once for all to the saints”, and God preserves it, we can be confident that what we have received comes from Him. To believe otherwise would mean that He abandoned His very great and precious promises to the Church He founded, and built.

yep, silence in the historical record up to the wild tales of the Protoevangelium of James and the writings of Tertullian are what we both have to deal with.

There is a difference between pious legends, and 'wild tales" Radical. Wouldn’t it be much more wild, and profitable to write tales about the other Children of the Blessed Mother? Have you never wondered why we don’t have His lineage with us today? Why the Popes are not chosen from among their descendants?

1. if the PVM was a reality, it would have been there to mention and use against the Gnostics…and guess what? the PVM isn’t mentioned in that time period, and until the claim is produced one could not expect that it would be addressed

This is an interesting speculation. But the issue with the Gnostics focused upon the flesh of Christ, not the flesh of other siblings. That is why all the Apologies we have that address Gnostic heresies are focused on the virgin conception and virgin birth, and that Jesus took flesh of her flesh. Not to worry, though, all those people also knew He was an only son.

2) if brethren of Jesus were a reality, they would have been there to mention...and guess what?...the scriptures and other sources do mention brothers

They do. Children of another Mary.

Mark 15:47
Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1
nd when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Matt 27:56
among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

If one will take the time (and have the open mindedness) to examine the evidence, it is clear that the Mother of James and Joseph (Joses) was with Mary Magdalene, and Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40
0 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Clearly Mary, the mother of James and Joses (and Jude, the brother of the Lord) is referred to here as “Mary, His mothers sister”.

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

I have posted these reference for others who are reading the thread, Radical, since you have been shown these simple facts many times, yet continue to deny them.

3) we both know that by the 5th century the PVM was very much accepted by those running the show

These are the same ones that preserved, promulgated, and canonized your Scriptures, Radical. I guess it is a good thing they were authorized by God to do such a thing!

and so from the 5th to 10 centuries (for example), if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) declaring the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of preservation and if there were works (from the 1st two centuries) denying the PVM they would have been seen as being worthy of the fire (fortunately Tertullian was just too respected to destroy)

Yes, heretical documents were destroyed to preserve that which was handed down from the Apsotles.

You should note that points 1 and 3 actually suggest that if my view is correct, then we should expect such a silence.

Since you are separated from the Apostolic Tradition, you are unaware that these beliefs have been preserved in the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Radical]

…Precisely why I am not a Protestant: Always trying to bring God down to the mere human level.

you don’t need to worry about that…God kinda did that himself…tis called the incarnation

There is no good reason to limit God to the extent of our understanding, no matter how hard it might be to fathom.

and that is why I have reservations about a doctrine called the Trinity…I can’t imagine that man has described God all that well with mere words

WRONG! Another poor interpretation by you. The above has been debunked so many times by others and especially by elvisman. So try another angle.

do you actually believe that showing how “brother” could possibly mean something other than blood brother somehow results in the situation where “brother” ** must absolutely mean** something other than blood brother…it doesn’t…not even close

Unbelievable! I guess you never bother to read how the terms 'BROTHERS" and “UNTIL” has been explained to you a billion times.But no,you still insist on your conjecture Jesus had more siblings. ONE MORE TIME: Where does it state (A REALITY WITHOUT A DOUBT) Mary did in fact give birth to other children? Still waiting Radical.

I have never claimed that the Bible states “w/o a doubt” that Mary gave birth to other children…however, I have explained that it is about what is most likely.

Where does it state (A REALITY) Mary did in fact give birth to other children?

you repeat this as if you think it somehow determines the issue. The Scriptures are not particularly interested in telling us about Mary (once the virgin birth is done)…she falls into the background as the apostles take centre stage around Jesus (and then on their own). As a result of that lack of interest in Mary, there is a silence, and as with the silence from the first 2 centuries, the silence favors my position:

1. if the PVM was a reality, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned it…and, on the other hand, if the PVM wasn’t a reality, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned it. It ain’t mentioned…score one for me.
2. if Mary had other sons, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned them(when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance)…and, on the other hand, if Mary never had any other sons, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned them. The NT mentions brother(s) of Jesus at times when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance…score two for me.

One should note that there is no requirement for the NT authors to describe such a brother as a son of Mary…First, Mary fades into the background after the birth and Jesus is the Lord…so we should expect people to be identified by their relationship to the Lord and not a fading figure. Second, the ancients weren’t fools. They could understand that brother of Jesus would equal son of Mary (unless one was considering a son of Joseph from another wife - either before or after Mary, but neither of those possibilities is mentioned in scripture). Also, with respect to the “cousin” theory, it is only a possibility and it suffers from the problem that Greek does have a word for “cousin,” => anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 where Barnabas is said to be the cousin of Mark. Therefore, Paul, knew of and used the word for “cousin”. Paul, however, does not apply the word “cousin” to James, the Lord’s “brother”, in Galatians 1:19. Luke, who writes one gospel and Acts had a very good command of Greek, but he also doesn’t use the word for “cousin” to describe Jesus’ brethren. The “Aramaic doesn’t have a word for cousin” point is only of any use if:

a) it can be established that the underlying tradition behind the “brother(s)” passages is in Aramaic; and

b) that the recorders of those passages weren’t “inspired” enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”; and

c) even then it is of no use in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” instead of cousin(s) (at Gal 1:19, Luke 8, Acts 1:14) unless we want to assume that they were just confused.

 

[Radical]

The New Testament isn’t ordinary Greek.

Parts of it are translations from Aramaic. Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

There was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

as I have said:

a) this only expresses a possible alternate meaning of “brother”… as a possibility it is far from the necessary meaning…and it isn’t even the most likely meaning.

b) it hits a wall in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” …the gospel of John was probably written in Greek as well, so it likely hits a wall there too…and who knows if any (but a few words) of Mark and Matthew was ever recorded in Aramaic.

IMHO you describe a possibility with a rather low probability

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

as I have said:

a) this only expresses a possible alternate meaning of “brother”… as a possibility it is far from the necessary meaning…and it isn’t even the most likely meaning.

This is not only the height of arrogance but also violates one of the basic principles of hermenuetics: which is to consider not what you think the author meant(especially to satisfy your prejudices) but only that which the author intended to convey. IOW, what you THINK is the “most likely meaning” is irrelevent. If the common notion of Jews or Greeks in Palestine is to use “adelphoi” to refer to cousins as well as germane brothers then you must accept it as it is.

Matt 10:3 has James the lesser being the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph or Mary. So James could not be Jesus’ brother.

b) it hits a wall in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” …the gospel of John was probably written in Greek as well, so it likely hits a wall there too…and who knows if any (but a few words) of Mark and Matthew was ever recorded in Aramaic.

IMHO you describe a possibility with a rather low probability

The key to your last statement is in the beginning of it: In My Honest Opinion.

If you’re going to argue your opinion as fact then you are not putting forth facts, only subjective reasoning.

IOW your whole statement begs the question. Assuming that which you’re trying to prove.

You seem intent on ignoring the Scripture I cited and instead just sticking to your opinion.

 

[placido]

1. if Mary had other sons, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned them(when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance)…and, on the other hand, if Mary never had any other sons, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned them. The NT mentions brother(s) of Jesus at times when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance…score two for me.

You desperately need some scores, regardless the fact that you were shown on numerous occasions that those mentioned are children of another Mary.

Mark 15:47
Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1
nd when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Matt 27:56
among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

If one will take the time (and have the open mindedness) to examine the evidence, it is clear that the Mother of James and Joseph (Joses) was with Mary Magdalene, and Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40
0 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Clearly Mary, the mother of James and Joses (and Jude, the brother of the Lord) is referred to here as “Mary, His mothers sister”.

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

I have posted these reference for others who are reading the thread, Radical, since you have been shown these simple facts many times, yet continue to deny them.

 

[Radical]

Here we go again:

Looking at those who were at the foot of the cross.

okey let’s do just that

Mattew 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

intertesting…but I thought we were looking at those who were at the foot of the cross…these women are far off.

Mark 15:[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

these women are also far off

John 19:[25] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

OK…finally the women who are at the foot of the cross.

Matthew has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

at a distance

Mark has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me.

right, the same 3 women at a distance

John has: Mary(Jesus’ mother), His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

the language is somewhat unclear, but it is likely four women are in this group (though maybe three)…The first thing one should notice is that the group has changed in size/mebership and is at a different location

We can eliminate the common Mary(s) that we know of-Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene.

how is Mary the mother of Jesus common to the 3 groups? She isn’t, unless you want to call her the mother of James and Joses…What seems to have happened in that Mary Magdalene (MM) was standing far off with two other women. At some point she moved and joined Mary (Jesus’ mother) and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross. The question then is:

a) did either of the two women (who were far off with MM) go with MM to the foot of the cross? or;

b) was one or both of the other women (mentioned in John) already there with the BVM when MM arrived?

It seems that you assume that both must have gone with MM so that you can finish your argument.

Once you eliminate them you have:
Matthew: Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark: Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me

John: His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

well you shouldn’t have eliminated Mary…she wasn’t common to the two differently located groups…so now, if the groups have changed in both location and membership, then why should we assume that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph = Jesus’ mother’s sister.
So let us recap…your analysis suffers from these four problems:

a) you have failed to note the change in location

b) you have failed to note the change in membership;

c) you have failed to mention that the named brethren of the Lord are James, Joseph, Judas and Simon

d) having done (a) and (b) you then make a grand assumption

Therefore James and John, the sons of the other Mary and Clopas, are COUSINS of Jesus-not brothers.

Therefore? That sounds as if you think that you have conclusively established something…through sloppiness and assumption? That don’t establish much.
There are two further matters that you should have also considered:

1)Let’s say, by some bit of luck, notwithstanding the sloppiness and the assumption, that you/Jerome have got this bit right:

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

(Jerome holds that Clopas-which is also transliterated into Greek as Alphaeus(Matt 10:3)-was the brother of Joseph, Jesus’ foster-father.)

With Joseph and Alphaeus coming from the same family and with the possible tendency for parents to name their sons after relatives, then the name pool for Alphaeus’ sons would be the same name pool as for Joseph’s sons…So it would seem that Alphaeus’ with had two sons named after two family members: James and Joseph …and that Mary, being blessed with a fruitful womb had four sons, two of which were named after those same family members.

1. Somewhere along the way, some alarm bells should have sounded for you b/c you should have noted that there is still a whole group of venerators that hold to the “step-brother/earlier sons of Joseph theory” …if, what you had here was actually a good proof, then those other venerators should have long since abandoned their “step-brother/earlier sons of Joseph theory” in favor of your proof (that they were only cousins)…that hasn’t happened and so, even your allies find your “proof” lacking.

 

[elvisman]

I have never claimed that the Bible states “w/o a doubt” that Mary gave birth to other children…however, I have explained that it is about what is most likely.

WRONG.
It actually shows that it is much more likely that she did NOT have any other children.
It also shows that it is MUCH more likely that these so-called “brothers” fall into the category of the much broader sense of the word for brother, Adelphos *(Greek) and Ach (Aramaic)*.

you repeat this as if you think it somehow determines the issue. The Scriptures are not particularly interested in telling us about Mary (once the virgin birth is done)…she falls into the background as the apostles take centre stage around Jesus (and then on their own). As a result of that lack of interest in Mary, there is a silence, and as with the silence from the first 2 centuries, the silence favors my position:

1. if the PVM was a reality, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned it…and, on the other hand, if the PVM wasn’t a reality, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned it. It ain’t mentioned…score one for me.

**This is an impotent argument as there are many other things that the Scriptures don’t mention that are matters of faith such as ****Infant Baptism ****and the Canon of Scripture. In fact – there is not even a mention of an OT Canon in the NT – and that was the ****ONLY **Scripture that existed during the time of the Apostles.

Silence in the 1st 2 centuries about Mary? The Protoevangelum of James was written during the 2nd century – about 110 years after the Ascension of Jesus.