I'm hung up on Mary.

[kbf1970060]

I am concerned about the security of this site. Some unauthorized member named Michael Francis is credited with editing a post of mine.

 

[Actaeon]

I am concerned about the security of this site. Some unauthorized member named Michael Francis is credited with editing a post of mine.

Michael Francis is a moderator, and has the ability to edit a post when it might overstep the bounds of the rules of the forum (without being so egregious as to warrant deletion and penalties applied to the member). An example of such an edit might be applied to naming a specific priest and the parish that they work at, since that is exposing someone’s personal details without their expressed permission. So while I might say that my name is Paul and I live in X state, I am not at liberty to discuss the details of others without their permission. There are, of course, other reasons that your post may have been edited as well.

 

[kbf1970060]

Michael Francis is a moderator, and has the ability to edit a post when it might overstep the bounds of the rules of the forum (without being so egregious as to warrant deletion and penalties applied to the member). An example of such an edit might be applied to naming a specific priest and the parish that they work at, since that is exposing someone’s personal details without their expressed permission. So while I might say that my name is Paul and I live in X state, I am not at liberty to discuss the details of others without their permission. There are, of course, other reasons that your post may have been edited as well.

Thank you, I searched the member directory, and sent a message to another moderator, when finding Michael Francis as a member neither having posts, nor threads, and without any indication of being a moderator: a moderator editing posts – I can understand – so I was a bit concerned. The body of what I wrote, to my memory, looked unchanged. One matter to let go in one ear, and out the other.

 

[Ion]

Try to see The Holy Family as real persons, and not only as the text written in the gospels…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Acts 1:12-14 NASB

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

That’s explains the whole thing. He had brothers. It is safe not certain to say she had other sons

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.” Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”

It is very clear especially when you have the literal trio 1) carpenters sons. 2) Mary. 3) his brothers. If this fails to convince that the early apostles knew Mary had other children, I’m not sure what else could convince you, only that youbeither would have to time travel back or find out in heaven. But at this point it is impossible for the church to err at this point for catholics and so even clear statements such as these could not even make a catholic concerned.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.” Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”

It is very clear especially when you have the literal trio 1) carpenters sons. 2) Mary. 3) his brothers. If this fails to convince that the early apostles knew Mary had other children, I’m not sure what else could convince you, only that youbeither would have to time travel back or find out in heaven. But at this point it is impossible for the church to err at this point for catholics and so even clear statements such as these could not even make a catholic concerned.

Uh huh. So why is it that during the first 350 years of Christianity, when all this was being taught, and written, nobody had the sense to, the minute Mary started being called 'ever Virgin" (which was at the LATEST by the 2nd century AD), say, “Wait a minute, it clearly SAYS in the BIBLE that Jesus had brothers, how could Mary be ever virgin?”

It’s not as though these gospel passages were ‘unknown’. They were well known.

But EVEN MARTIN LUTHER, WHO KNEW THEM, STILL BELIEVED MARY WAS EVER VIRGIN. Would you care to explain how one of the EARLIEST PROTESTANT ‘REFORMERS’ 'missed the boat"?

THe problem with you, Eric, is you think the Catholic Church goes around and makes up stuff ‘outside the Bible’.

It doesn’t. The Catholic Church–through whom you GOT the Bible, incidentally, only proclaims the teachings of God–Father, Son, and Spirit. Unlike some other faiths, and indeed some Christian denominations, the Catholic Church doesn’t go around ‘changing’ teaching.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Where do you see the doctrine in the first couple centuries? And I know it is through catholics we got the bible. But it is very plain that Jesus had brothers from Mary, otherwise why call then brothers. And if cousins how does this verse tell us cousins?

5 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” Mark 6:2-3 -

Why this normal family trio?

And if Joseph had sons from a previous wife, where are the children when Mary had to travel to Egypt? You knowbthey were probably in Egypt for a while since Luke says all those who sought the child had died.

 

[Ion]

Tradition didn’t have any problem with the texts; the gospels were chosen based on tradition

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I would say that in this instance we have something to be concerned about. Tradition obviously didn’t miss these passages, but they obviously ignore what is written based on the oral tradition they received. I mean what is going on in these verses? Are we to rely on the VARYING solutions of the church fathers on how Mary was a virgin until death? Many of them argue in different ways that are contradictory to each other. Which father do we pick to believe?

We have clear statements here that are explained away by the fathers in mutually exclusive ways. This shows that they were aware of these verses but were unsure on how to deal with them, since many offer different solutions to the seeming contradiction. Which also shows that if tradition taught Marys perpetual virginity, there was no tradition on how to deal with these early records of Mary’s other children.

 

[Ion]

…early records of Mary’s other children.

Where it is written “Mary’s other children”?

Jews didn’t recognize Jesus because they judged the scriptures with a wrong heart (the texts were copied by letter as probably you know)

 

[TimothyH]

I would say that in this instance we have something to be concerned about. Tradition obviously didn’t miss these passages, but they obviously ignore what is written based on the oral tradition they received. I mean what is going on in these verses? Are we to rely on the VARYING solutions of the church fathers on how Mary was a virgin until death? Many of them argue in different ways that are contradictory to each other. Which father do we pick to believe?

We have clear statements here that are explained away by the fathers in mutually exclusive ways. This shows that they were aware of these verses but were unsure on how to deal with them, since many offer different solutions to the seeming contradiction. Which also shows that if tradition taught Marys perpetual virginity, there was no tradition on how to deal with these early records of Mary’s other children.

You are making the common mistake of reading scripture in light of modern language.

There was no word for cousin. Male cousins were called “Brother” and female cousins were called “Sister”. If you wanted to indicate that someone was your cousin but not your brother, you would say “The son of my father’s brother.”

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. (Leviticus 18:14)

for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zeloph’ehad, were married to sons of their father’s brothers. (Numbers 36:11)

Members of the extended family were often called “Kin” or “Brethren”.

The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, and what was written down was often transliterated from languages which are now all but lost. We can’t make the mistake of reading it like it was written just a few years ago.

Remember that Mary and Jospeh lost the 12 year old Jesus in a caravan, assuming that he was with other family members. Family structure was different back then, and the caravan was likely what we would know as a clan or a large number of kin-folk. All the cousins in the clan would have been “brothers.”

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Remember that these people were Jewish. Look at how Jesus the Jew handles his birthright.

First born sons in Israel had the “Right of the first born”, or the birthright. The birthright was extremely important in Jewish culture.

***Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright **to Jacob. (Genesis 25:33)

**And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright **and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at one another in amazement. (Genesis 43:33)

though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph. (1 Chronicles 5:2)

but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. (Dueteronomy 21:17)
The first born son recieved the birthright, and with it came a double share of his Father’s inheritance - twice as much as his brothers. This was part of the Levitical law given to Moses by God. But with the double inheritance came responsiblity. The oldest brother was head of the household when his father died - the responsiblity to care for the family fell to him. This was a formal responsibility which was passed from father to first born son, and this formal status of having the right of birth could be sold or given away. One could refuse to accept the birthright. Esau did exactly that, rejected his birthright and sold it for a plate of food. Transferring a birthright - selling it, giving it away, recieving it from one’s brother, or the formal transferring of leadership of the houshold by a dying father to his first born son - would have been major events in the life of a Jewish family.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)

This wasn’t just a sentimental gesture by Jesus. This wasn’t Jesus telling his mother that he was going to miss her. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. John was Jewish. They were Jews. Knowing that he was going to die, Jesus was giving his birthright to John. If Jesus had a brother - another son of his mother - the birthright would have surely passed to that brother. But Jesus didn’t have any brothers, so he gave his birthright to his closes friend, one who reclined at his bosom at the Last Supper.

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:27)

A true understanding of this verse is only possible in the context of Israelite culture in the first century. Remember, these were Jews! I can’t stress that enough. Taking Mary “into his own home” was a statement that John had accepted Jesus’ birthright, with all it’s responsiblities, including care for the women of Jesus’ family.

There is no way a Jew in first century Judea would have not passed a birthright to a brother if such a brother existed. John accepted the birthright, and this shows that Jesus had no brother’s to give it to.

The birthright was extremely important to Jews, and when we read scripture must never, ever forget that these people were Jews. The way they handle the birthright is an important clue in Jesus’ Jewish family structure.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Remember that these people were Jewish. Look at how Jesus the Jew handles his birthright.

First born sons in Israel had the “Right of the first born”, or the birthright. The birthright was extremely important in Jewish culture.

***Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright ***to Jacob. (Genesis 25:33)

**And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright **and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at one another in amazement. (Genesis 43:33)

though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph. (1 Chronicles 5:2)

but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. (Dueteronomy 21:17)

The first born son recieved the birthright, and with it came a double share of his Father’s inheritance - twice as much as his brothers. This was part of the Levitical law given to Moses by God. But with the double inheritance came responsiblity. The oldest brother was head of the household when his father died - the responsiblity to care for the family fell to him. This was a formal responsibility which was passed from father to first born son, and this formal status of having the right of birth could be sold or given away. One could refuse to accept the birthright. Esau did exactly that, rejected his birthright and sold it for a plate of food. Transferring a birthright - selling it, giving it away, recieving it from one’s brother, or the formal transferring of leadership of the houshold by a dying father to his first born son - would have been major events in the life of a Jewish family.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (John 19:26)

This wasn’t just a sentimental gesture by Jesus. This wasn’t Jesus telling his mother that he was going to miss her. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. John was Jewish. They were Jews. Knowing that he was going to die, Jesus was giving his birthright to John. If Jesus had a brother - another son of his mother - the birthright would have surely passed to that brother. But Jesus didn’t have any brothers, so he gave his birthright to his closes friend, one who reclined at his bosom at the Last Supper.

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:27)

A true understanding of this verse is only possible in the context of Israelite culture in the first century. Remember, these were Jews! I can’t stress that enough. Taking Mary “into his own home” was a statement that John had accepted Jesus’ birthright, with all it’s responsiblities, including care for the women of Jesus’ family.

There is no way a Jew in first century Judea would have not passed a birthright to a brother if such a brother existed. John accepted the birthright, and this shows that Jesus had no brother’s to give it to.

The birthright was extremely important to Jews, and when we read scripture must never, ever forget that these people were Jews. The way they handle the birthright is an important clue in Jesus’ Jewish family structure.

-Tim-

Thank you for your comments. I have to say that it is too quick that Catholics blame orthodox or others for not respecting or understanding history. I love history, and I respect ever word that is written in the history of Christianity, with goodness and sincerity.

Eusebius records the following from Hegesippus concerning James the Just and his episcopal seat after his death:

“After James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as our Lord had for the same reason, Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of the Lord. Hence they called the church as yet a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses…” (Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History, book 4 chapter 22).

Now Hegesippus was born in 110 AD, and as he was writing he made it clear that all proposed that this man was the Lord’s cousin. This is right in the history of the literature. And if one wants to make an argument from jewish literature that it would not have been written in the way Hegessipus wrote, this is also lacking for the author’s of the new testament were not just writing to Jews when they recorded things which mention “the brothers of the Lord”, especially the gospel of John.

It is unacceptable to give these historical reasons to get out of something as clear as :

Is not this the carpenters [Joseph’s] son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Mark 6:2-3

Notice the difference between this verse and your explanation of John’s record of telling Mary that he was her son, vice verse. He actually said “Jesus had no brothers”, where this verse says he had brothers who could be identified directly with Joseph their father and Mary their mother. This is plain as day.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

At this point we are digging way beneath the comments of later authors who followed a tradition which stated that Mary was a physical virgin until death. This is Hegesippus, probably a Jewish convert btw, writing in the early 2nd century, and is not only open to a category of “uncle” and “cousin”, but makes it clear that Jesus had an uncle and that this uncle’s son was Jesus’ “cousin”.

It is possible that just as my quote shows how authors can postulate a church being a virgin since it had not been in vain discourses, that Mary had come to be known as a virgin simply because of her sinlessness, rather than her actual physical virginity. Much like Israel was considered a virgin when she was holy to God.

And there are other sources to bring about from antiquity to prove this kind of reasoning. One who does not known the breadth of antiquity must not be too quick to begin explaining absolutes from little data or little knowledge of ancient texts.

 

[Ion]

From wikipedia:"…Eusebius’ own shaky command of Hebrew and Aramaic,[9] and his lack of personal knowledge of customs of the Jews, were insufficiently founded to judge Hegesippus as a dependable source[10]…"
Eusebius wrote in his own words…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

So we eliminate the category of uncle and cousin?

What about Paul?

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him) (col 4:10) ???

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

So are we to understand the “brothers” of Jesus to be the children of either Joseph or Mary’s siblings? Why are they so wound up with Joseph and Mary? Should it not say "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and Mary’s sister’s sons James, joseph and simon and Judas? The category is there in Paul Col 4:10. And if you want to push to Jewish culture on Colossians 4:10, Paul is calling Mark (who is Jewish) Barnabas’s (who is Jewish) cousin!

Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

Why should we read this as Mary’s sister’s children or Joseph’s siblings’ children? Why not just the children that Mary bore in her womb? That were brothers of Jesus? It seems very plain that this is why they are together, no?

Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

“These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

 

[Ion]

Where it is written “Mary’s other children”?

Jews didn’t recognize Jesus because they judged the scriptures with a wrong heart (the texts were copied by letter as probably you know)

Again, this is how you judged, and I challenged you to bring a writing, the Church recognized it before the lutheran schism, in this formula…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I am not understanding what you mean.

The argument here is over whether Jesus had brothers who were Mary’s children. The arguments posed against the positive is that in the Jewish culture, cousins were called brothers and sisters.

I am saying that there is a category for “brother” who is the son of the same mother and it is the same designation for Jesus’ brothers, and that they being so closely referenced and identified with Joseph and Mary as parents that it would be unlikely that it is not referring to Mary’s children. Just very unlikely.