Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[mmmcounts]

Hey Mike,

Can you address the stuff I offered in my post and in the link to my reasons for accepting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin?

I’ll start by saying Joseph certainly was quite a bit older than Mary. She was no older than about 16- the upper marrying age for Jewish girls at that time. Jewish men always got married at an older age. In your version of the story, though, in order for Joseph to have had time to be married, have at least six kids, and watch them all grow up to the point where they were on their own during the trip to Bethlehem and flight to Egypt, he must have been at least 55 or 60 years old. Your version of the story puts Mary in the care of a guy who’s older than her own father by plenty. How is that helpful? I know Joseph was older than Mary, but not THAT much older.

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

To this, I will point out that during Jesus’ years of ministry prior to His death, Mary is frequently listed along with Jesus’ brothers (and sisters, mentioned once). When she would go places, she would be “there with” them. Was she just hanging out with them? Or were they taking care of her in Jesus’ absence? I would say the latter. This continues after Jesus’ death, too.

If she had other kids they would’ve been there too [at the cross].

Jesus’ siblings did not believe He was the Son of God until after His resurrection. It makes perfect sense for family members who believed him guilty and false to behave differently than family members who believed him innocent and truthful.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son

If Jesus’ claims were not true- which is exactly what his younger siblings believed- Jesus, in their eyes, would be guilty of something not just “virtually criminal,” but blasphemy punishable by death. It was pretty uncommon for a younger sibling to disrespect an elder, but it’s also not every day that your older brother claims to be God’s Son.

Let’s focus in on Jesus’ request to John in John 19:26-27.

Notice how Jesus talks to his mother first. If His primary intention was to give His mother into the care of John at his home, He probably would have talked to John first. As it is, He talks to His mother first. He gives her a son. There’s no way you can truly replace Jesus, but that was the idea behind the gesture. After that, Jesus told John to behold “thy mother.”

Then it says “And from that hour,” John took her to his own. You probably assume that means he took her home, but this cannot possibly be. It says “from that hour.” John’s home was a day and a half journey from that place, and we know both he and Mary stuck around at least until the Resurrection. So John did not take her home from that hour. Maybe you believe he did after that, but you surely can’t suggest that he did this “from that hour.” He did do something from that hour, though. He accepted her as his own mother, and she did the same in regarding him as her son. This does not necessarily mean John eventually took her exclusively into his care. There is no evidence that he did, and there is pretty good evidence that he did not.

The common Catholic complaint looks like this: “If Mary had other kids, wouldn’t they be really mad about Mary being given to the exclusive care of John?” Well, she wasn’t given to the exclusive care of John. I’ve already demonstrated that what he did “from that hour” could not entail taking her home, and I’ve suggested that Jesus’ request was neither intended nor understood to entail John exclusively taking over the responsibilities of caring for Mary. Acts 1 shows he did not.

Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew…They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

First notice that John is listed among the disciples as usual and without a companionate link to Mary. Then Mary the mother of Jesus is named, once again listed with Jesus’ brothers. Just like in Matthew 12:46 and 13:55, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, and John 2:12, to name a few. If Jesus’ intention was to give Mary to the exclusive care of John, how do you account for the fact that there is no evidence of this actually happening and there is evidence that Mary continues to be with Jesus’ brothers just like during His ministry?

Did Mary and John misunderstand Jesus? Did they ignore Him? Or…here’s another option you should really consider…Perhaps you are the one who misunderstood Jesus. You thought He was giving Mary into the exclusive care of John, and you probably even thought John took her home. From that hour…yeah right. If by from that hour you mean after the resurrection, wait another forty days till the ascension, and THEN start on the day and a half trip…there are some pretty difficult interpretive requirements if you choose to go that route, my friend.

Anyway, here’s my contention: Mary and John did not misunderstand Jesus, and He did not mean to give Mary into John’s exclusive care. You misunderstood Jesus and they did not. Mary did indeed take John unto her as a son, and he took her as his mother. But he did not take her into his exclusive care, as we can see from Acts 1. And when all the disciples, including John, got together with Mary and Jesus’ brothers who were still with her, there was no tension because the imagined faux pas is truly only a product of your misunderstanding.

 

[mmmcounts]

Here’s a couple of verses that I should probably add to the thread, as they actually do reference Jesus’ brothers in the context of Mary being their mother. Let’s start with the ever-popular passage where Jesus’ brothers are named and His sisters are mentioned, but not named.

Mark 6:3- “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

And now, as promised, Mary the mother of Jesus is referenced as the mother of other children.

Mark 15:40- “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;”

And again, just so you know it wasn’t a fluke.

Mark 16:1- “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.”

Boy, that’s a problem for you guys. I know you’ll rationalize it one way or another because you have to, but there’s no way you’ll convince someone unless they are first bound by reflexive assent to what you call apostolic authority. It’s plain to see that these passages are referring to Jesus’ mother as the mother of other children.

So what’s your explanation? Was it actually some other woman named Mary who decided to duplicate Mary’s choice of names for her kids? Come on, even you can’t take that argument seriously. Are you starting to become aware of the fact that you have to work against the Bible way too hard in order to get the Gospel of James and other apocryphal books to fit in with it?

 

[YADA]

Here’s a couple of verses that I should probably add to the thread, as they actually do reference Jesus’ brothers in the context of Mary being their mother. Let’s start with the ever-popular passage where Jesus’ brothers are named and His sisters are mentioned, but not named.

Mark 6:3- “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

And now, as promised, Mary the mother of Jesus is referenced as the mother of other children.

What is noteworthy and important inthis passage is the identification of Jesus as Mary’s son and not Joseph … In fact Mark changes rthe wording as found in Matthew … identifying Jesus as a carpenter and not the carpenter’s son [ie the blood son of Joseph] … this is counter to Jewish tradition of identifying people as teh son of the father …

I am thinking that if you had chosen Matthew [and you did not for this reason] you would not be arguing for paternity of Joseph - though that would be the very clear reading and meaning of the text. As Christians - we do not read it that way though because we know [though faith] that Jesus is the mysteriously begotten son of God and not through normal carnal relations - born of a Virgin. You choose to attempt to force facts not in evidence [against 2000 years of belief] a gotcha that is weak at best. Then you wonder why your arguments are less then persuasive…

This passge identifies Jesus as a carpenter and the son of Mary … it does not say that any of the others mentioned are the children of Mary … they could be Jesus’ step brothers and sisters, his cousins … … it definately does not say in any definative way that James, Joses, Jude, Simon or any sisters are in fact the offspring of Mary’s womb …

Mark 15:40- “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;”

And again, just so you know it wasn’t a fluke.

And again, the passage does not say "Mary, the mother of Jesus, was their with her children James, Joses and Salome …

Mark 16:1- “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.”

Boy, that’s a problem for you guys. I know you’ll rationalize it one way or another because you have to, but there’s no way you’ll convince someone unless they are first bound by reflexive assent to what you call apostolic authority. It’s plain to see that these passages are referring to Jesus’ mother as the mother of other children.

This is not a problem for us … it is only a prolem for you … distorting the scriptures in such a way …

So what’s your explanation? Was it actually some other woman named Mary who decided to duplicate Mary’s choice of names for her kids? Come on, even you can’t take that argument seriously. Are you starting to become aware of the fact that you have to work against the Bible way too hard in order to get the Gospel of James and other apocryphal books to fit in with it?

Th Mary that went to the tomb was not Jesus’ mother [that is actually a new take - neverheard that one before] …

Sorry, your passages and analysis fail to cathc the imagination …

And your post with analysis about John not taking Mary into his house from “that hour” … becasue they did not rush home immediately …

All I can say is It is imaginative and creative but … :hypno:

 

[mmmcounts]

I am thinking that if you had chosen Matthew [and you did not for this reason] you would not be arguing for paternity of Joseph - though that would be the very clear reading and meaning of the text.

That’s exactly what Jesus’ neighbors meant to imply. They didn’t believe he was the son of God. That is the whole point of them saying “Is this not the son of that guy, and isn’t that woman his mother? And aren’t those his brothers and sisters?”

As Christians - we do not read it that way though because we know [though faith] that Jesus is the mysteriously begotten son of God and not through normal carnal relations - born of a Virgin.

Yes, that and also the fact that just because someone is quoted in the Bible doesn’t mean the person or what they say is trustworthy. In this case, the Bible quotes people who didn’t believe Jesus was the son of God. As far as what they said there, that was false. But they did get the names of his brothers right.

You choose to attempt to force facts not in evidence

Did you read what I posted?

This passge identifies Jesus as a carpenter and the son of Mary … it does not say that any of the others mentioned are the children of Mary … they could be Jesus’ step brothers and sisters, his cousins …

The important thing is that it tells us the names of Jesus’ brothers. Later, they are identified as Mary’s sons. Do you see it now?

… it definately does not say in any definative way that James, Joses, Jude, Simon or any sisters are in fact the offspring of Mary’s womb …

It names them in one passage as Jesus’ brothers. A chapter later, two of them are named as Mary’s sons.

And again, the passage does not say "Mary, the mother of Jesus, was their with her children James, Joses and Salome …

Salome’s a chick, brah. She was another woman going somewhere with Mary…the mother of James and Joses. Coincidentally, James and Joses were also identified as Jesus’ brothers.

This is not a problem for us … it is only a prolem for you … distorting the scriptures in such a way …

This can’t be a problem for me. I’m fine with apocryphal books being a mix of accurate and inaccurate. You’re the one whose faith (somehow) depends on the Gospel of James being accurate in every way that pertains to Catholic dogma of the Marian variety. If its contents were true, that’d be fine with me. But they obviously aren’t. And that’s totally fine too.

Sorry, your passages and analysis fail to cathc the imagination …

Oh, is that what I’m supposed to be doing.

And your post with analysis about John not taking Mary into his house from “that hour” … becasue they did not rush home immediately …

That’s not what I said. You know what I said, but you decided to distort it. Don’t ever do that again.

Seriously. I mean it.

Not kidding.

Are we clear?

What I said was this: The interpretation requiring that “From that hour, he took her into his home” is not consistent with the fact that John did not make it back to his home during that weekend, or during that month, for that matter. Whatever he did “from that hour” did not involve taking her home.

And I seriously doubt you are actually rolling on the floor laughing about this.

 

[jean8]

Excuse me?

I wrote extensively on Matthew 1:18 in posts 29, 30 & 31 and again in post 44. You even quoted and responded to that last one in your own post 45. This proves that I have done anything but ignore the verse and that you are aware that I was not ignoring it.

Why this falsehood, Mike?

Are you ignoring my question as to why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley all believed not just in the Virgin Birth but in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as well?

The question, ‘Was Joseph actually married to Mary?’ See Lu.2:1-7
Also see Lu.1:26-45

God bless,
jean

 

[YADA]

That’s exactly what Jesus’ neighbors meant to imply. They didn’t believe he was the son of God. That is the whole point of them saying “Is this not the son of that guy, and isn’t that woman his mother? And aren’t those his brothers and sisters?”

Mary - the Mother of Jesus is not the mother of James, Joses, Jude and Salome, the scriptures never identify any other child other then Jesus as from her womb …

Yes, that and also the fact that just because someone is quoted in the Bible doesn’t mean the person or what they say is trustworthy. In this case, the Bible quotes people who didn’t believe Jesus was the son of God. As far as what they said there, that was false. But they did get the names of his brothers right.

Brothers was a term to identify cousins, uncles, and even people from the same village/clan and companions in faith … unless Abraham was both Lott’s uncle and brother… you have been provided various passages where individuals are called "brothes’ when the meanning was not ‘from the same womb’ …

Did you read what I posted?

Yes

The important thing is that it tells us the names of Jesus’ brothers. Later, they are identified as Mary’s sons. Do you see it now?

No, because it is not there

It names them in one passage as Jesus’ brothers. A chapter later, two of them are named as Mary’s sons.

They are not children from Mary’s womb

Salome’s a chick, brah. She was another woman going somewhere with Mary…the mother of James and Joses. Coincidentally, James and Joses were also identified as Jesus’ brothers.

Yes, I know her gender

This can’t be a problem for me. I’m fine with apocryphal books being a mix of accurate and inaccurate. You’re the one whose faith (somehow) depends on the Gospel of James being accurate in every way that pertains to Catholic dogma of the Marian variety. If its contents were true, that’d be fine with me. But they obviously aren’t. And that’s totally fine too.

I am not dependent upon the non-canonical works at all - and I do not make apeals to them …

Oh, is that what I’m supposed to be doing.

That’s not what I said. You know what I said, but you decided to distort it. Don’t ever do that again.

Seriously. I mean it.

Not kidding.

Are we clear?

What I said was this: The interpretation requiring that “From that hour, he took her into his home” is not consistent with the fact that John did not make it back to his home during that weekend, or during that month, for that matter. Whatever he did “from that hour” did not involve taking her home.

Oh, yes, I understood that you were counting more then just one hour [60 minutes or 3,600 seconds] … it matters not if John failed to tke her to a house for a year … John’s abode essentially is whereever he was and Mary was with him … it is a rediculous argument … as if he had to take her to his residence of record and no other … Sorry, that is the silliest argument you have made …

And I seriously doubt you are actually rolling on the floor laughing about this.

Honestly, it is the only original argument you have made … I have never heard that one before. Very different then each and everyone of your other “points” …Do a search of the forums - you will find countless thrads with othrs such as you making the same point - forcing the same protestant new fangled interpretation trying to 'teach the catholics how misguided they are" thread …

So I found your saying Hjohn did not take Mary home [because he did not leave the area for an extended time] unique - Not persuasive but original … It is quite the stretch in biblica interpretation…

yes, it struck me as funny … but no, I actually did not roll on the floor

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the contrary, that is exactly how the idea of “temple virgins” was superimposed on Jewish temple practices in the first place.

Mike-

FWIW, I’m not in favor of the “temple virgins” theory, because I’m not aware of any evidence to support it. Rather, I believe that Mary had taken a vow of life-long celibacy individually.

Today, I bought a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Gospel of Luke which has footnotes and commentary by Scott Hahn who is no slouch when it comes to biblical studies. You may recall that it was his study that brought him into the Catholic Church almost against his will.

In the footnote for 1:34, Hahn writes:

“How can this be: Or, better, “How will this be…?” Mary is not questioning God’s ability to give her a son, but she is inquiring as to how such a plan will unfold. I have no husband: The Greek text literally reads “I do not know man”, which refers to Mary’s virginal status rather than her marital status. Her concern is not that she is unmarried but that she is a virgin at present and that she intends to remain one in the future. The announcement of a miraculous conception (1:31) thus causes Mary to wonder aloud how God will bless her with a son and yet preserve her virginal purity. Her words are inexplicable otherwise. For nothing about the angel’s announcement should have perplexed Mary–whose betrothal to Joseph was already a legally binding marriage unless she intended to forego ordinary sexual relations even as a married woman.”

Mike, we have lots to talk about concerning the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism…this is really a minor backwater.

I know your cherished hope is that by somehow disproving the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, you can shatter the idea that the Catholic Church is infallible and thus bring down the whole Catholic shebang.

Unfortunately, this is not the wedge-issue you are hoping for, and you should apply your nimble intellect and limited time on more promising possibilities.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question, ‘Was Joseph actually married to Mary?’ See Lu.2:1-7
Also see Lu.1:26-45

God bless,
jean

Jean-

I have just reviewed the passages you quoted. Mike’s contention is that Joseph and Mary were actually married and therefore, it goes without saying that they had sex after Jesus was born. He cites Mt. 1:18 and Mt. 1:25 in support of his view.

I have pointed out that Mary and Joseph were “betrothed” which was a legally binding state (unknown in our culture) in which they were already legally married but not yet co-habitating as man and wife.

I have also pointed out the fact that none of the passages that Mike quotes tell us anything about the sexual activities or lack thereof between Joseph and Mary.

Mike wants them to have had normal intercourse in order to put the lie to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. That, in turn, will bring down the belief that the Catholic Church is infallible. If the Church is not infallible, then everything Catholicism claims is suspect, and Mike can continue on his merry Protestant way.

Thus, the PV of the BVM is the first domino that Mike wants to tip over. He won’t succeed, but his is spending an enormous amount of mind-time in the vain attempt.

As you know from your own Lutheran tradition, Luther (and the other Reformers) held that Mary remained ever-virgin, so I shall be expecting your support in this struggle to help Mike see the truth, okay?

 

[Doolin]

Yada and Randy,

Nice job… keep it up. This has been a good thread to read.

Doolin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yada and Randy,

Nice job… keep it up. This has been a good thread to read.

Doolin

:tiphat:

 

[nevadagardener]

Re: Jesus had siblings? Once you know the parents of the “brethren”, then you know they cannot be His Siblings.

---

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who haven’t read all the way through another thread running concurrently called “Jesus had siblings?”, the issue of these “brothers” of Jesus are revealed post by post throughout it, as we identify all of the characters supposedly “brethren”.

"First, go to Matthew 27:56…

55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, 33 who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and
Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matthew 27:55-56.

Note well that the women listed, and probably their children, too, were with Jesus in
Galilee, and that the children of one of these women NOT Jesus’ mother (despite her
name Mary) are named James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 makes it clear that Joseph
was also called Joses."

The identities of the characters in these Bible passages:

We know that “Mary, the Mother of James and Joseph”, is Mary of Cleophas, meaning “wife of” Cleophas, who is Saint Joseph’s brother, hence the brother- and sister-in-law of Our Lady. That would make Cleophas and Mary Jesus’s Aunt and Uncle on Joseph’s side, and James and Joseph His first cousins, along with Simon and Judas, listed in the following passage from Matthew … “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas”.

One would think in the Bible references that these two brothers, James and Joseph/Joses, traveled together, as they are often referenced together. Perhaps they were closer in age, we just don’t know.

Some Protestants and Eastern Orthodox sometimes try to make these four brothers the step-brothers of Jesus, and Salome Saint Joseph’s first wife, but these theories were thrown out by Saint Jerome and others, and many other sources cross-referencing the parents of the “brethren”, if you read all the way back through the thread and follow back all of the links. Now, it’s going to take a minute, because the thread has grown so large, but it is so worth it to have the understanding. A must read!

The next person listed in the passage from Matthew “and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”, oftentimes also named as the famous “third Mary” in other passages describing those present at the crucifixion (the other two being the above-named Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene) is Saint Mary Salome, sometimes just named “Salome”, but also known as the wife of Zebedee, also known as the sister of the four brothers in the passage above, the fifth child (though we don’t know any of their birth orders) of Saint Cleophas and Saint Mary of Cleophas. This sister, Mary Salome, and her husband, Zebedee, are Jesus’s relatives then, in that she would also be His first cousin, and their two children, Saint John, the Beloved Apostle, and Saint James the Greater, are His second cousins.

As we have discussed throughout this thread, five of the first and second cousins also become His Apostles: James the Less, Judas, and Simon, of the four brothers, first cousins; and John and James the Greater, second cousins. Joseph, the fourth brother, is later known as Saint Joseph of Barsabas, and is later considered as one of two candidates for the replacement by the remaining 11 Apostles for Judas the Traitor, but Matthias is chosen instead. That is some fascinating reading further back in the thread, if you missed it.

The relationship of the two Marys, to Our Lady, is sometimes confused also, in the lack of proper language for “sister-in-law” and “niece”. Some of the Bible verses call them her “sisters”, while in fact Mary of Cleophas is Our Lady’s sister-in-law, and Mary Salome is her niece. These two Marys are mother and daughter to each other, and are Jesus’s Aunt and Cousin.

"Now, go to one of the verses talking about Jesus’ adelphos, or “brothers”…

55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers
James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55."

We pull it apart over there.

Many of these posts also describe most eloquently the use of the Greek usage “brother” versus “cousin”, and the traditional usage of “brethren” in the Jewish customs. So fascinating!

You will find it very interesting reading if you follow the thread all the way through, as well as follow back all of the links to the various articles posted. Your Faith becomes all the more RICH once you have the history contained in the posts and the background of the various characters! If you haven’t made it all the way through, you simply must take it a few stretches at a time. This is one of the best threads I have read, or been a part of, on the Catholic Answers Forum. Bless all who have added and made it so.

Love,

nevadagardener :twocents:

P.S. I can’t come back! (Took a new job and am moving!) Just wandered over here and found this some great reading as well. Everything I have written is documented on the other thread, if you have questions. I just don’t have time to repost an entire thread over here, and I kinda don’t think CAF would be too crazy about it if I tried. Have fun!

 

[jcrichton]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

I’m going to say this later, so I might as well say it now. Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is God and was never at any point not God. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.

She was more than that, though, and you shouldn’t be afraid of the more complete picture. She was also the wife of Joseph. It’s not good to dwell on it too excessively or in depth, but she had normal marital relations with him- try to think about it the same way you think about it with your parents. (ie., not that much- but at least you don’t deny that it happens). She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

Do you have problems with any of that?

I do!

Why do you have no problems with St. Paul being celibate?

Why do you have no problems with St. Paul encouraging others to be as he, celibate?

Why do you suppose that you must know that Mary had other children?

Why do you not accept that the term “brother” and the term “sister” was used among the Hebrews as a term that included direct blood relations (brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the same parent/s), removed blood relations (uncles, aunts, cousins), and non-blood relations (family/clan lines, village/town, and general tribal ties)?

Since you seem to be keen on Scriptures, I can show you where the term “until” (or something similar) is used as nothing more than language usage; but, in turn, I would love for you to show me where there’s a single mention of anyone other than Jesus being Mary’s son or daughter.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

What I said was this: The interpretation requiring that “From that hour, he took her into his home” is not consistent with the fact that John did not make it back to his home during that weekend, or during that month, for that matter. Whatever he did “from that hour” did not involve taking her home.

In one sense, you are correct. The original Greek does not really contain the word “home” in John 19:27. “And from that hour the disciple took her eis ta idia (idios means “one’s own”, “pertaining to self”, “belonging to one’s self”).” Idios here is a neuter adjective - while there are instances in Greek literature where it may imply “one’s own home” here it does not seem to so much represent a place (i.e. the beloved disciple’s house) as it does a disposition. Eis, meanwhile, is used to express an end, purpose, or goal in John’s Gospel (1:7, 4:14, 4:36, 6:9, 9:39, 12:7, 13:29, 18:37). In this usage eis is better rendered into English as “for” or “as”, i.e. “the disciple took her” for his own - which does not necessarily involve actually taking her to his own house.

 

[nevadagardener]

By the way, we discuss over at “Jesus had siblings”, at great length the relationships of each character to Jesus, and provide their parentage, from various sources.

Also the fact that Mary, Our Lady, is an only child; Saint John the Baptist is another second cousin, also an only child; that “brothers” are also “followers” or “disciples”, following the use of the language, and that Saint Joseph is also a perpetual virgin, based on the Tradition of the Church Fathers (many quotes provided), though not officially Church Dogma.

The four brothers are brothers indeed, to each other, but are actually first cousins to Jesus, by His Aunt Mary and Uncle Cleophas. Also, the loose language in the famous question, “aren’t so and so His brothers?”, could also refer to the fact they knew these four were also among His Apostles (three of the four, to be exact), aka “followers”, aka “brothers”. It is, in fact, a Question, not a known Statement of Fact.

Please follow us over there. Since I cannot follow this thread a second time as you debate the “brethren” question, due to new time constraints, those of you who do follow the thread, please feel free to cut and paste from it and take up the mantle (though watch for the couple of corrections later on before you post my same boo boos). You go! The truth will set this question to rest, and it is in abundant form in those many pages, and in those many links posted by others.

So MANY errors are made when trying to read passages without knowing the background. There are so many times when the passages are written as if the writer assumes we already know the relationships of the characters in the passages, or the customs of the times. Many of the relationships give partial descriptions of the relationships, a small effort to make clear who was there, in lieu of no last names.

It gets hairy when you realize there is an Uncle and Nephew named Joseph; an Aunt/Mother and niece/daughter threesome, all named Mary; another Uncle/Nephew named James (and both are Apostles); and two second cousins named John. When you follow the thread, however, we lay out for you the distinct family relationships of the four families involved, and show how they are not just family names repeating, (though they do repeat).

Once you know “who is who”, it makes reading Scriptures fun, because you can then tie it all together! We go into more detail about that on the thread, as well.

Enjoy!

 

[jcrichton]

No, Randy, you have to translate “came together” in the sense of conjugal relations. It is the only translation that makes sense. I hope I don’t have to repeat this too many times.

So, how important is it to your Christian faith that it be written in Scriptures of Joseph’s and Mary’s sex life?

You continue to refuse to understand that the Holy Scriptures were not describing Joseph’s or Mary’s sexual life but Jesus’ Incarnation!

You’ve been given most, if not all, of the reasons why Mary could not have been bearer of other children and yet you refuse to accept that your reasoning is flawed!

You seem to have some knowledge of Biblical languages, and I suspect you have studied Jesus’ contemporary Judaic culture, how common was it in His days to remove the surviving parents from a household/family clan and bequeath them to a friend? Would the act of relinquishing Jesus’ supposed sibblings from their inherited rights and obligations (that of the first-born Son) be seen as a wonderful legacy for Jesus of Nazareth?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

A question for the Catholics here: Why are we listening to someone who belongs to a church founded by an adulterous monarch?

I think that when people such as this one comes along, we can use the experience as an exercise to improve our abilities and to deepen our Faith–there’s also the remotest chance that they might start reading the Holy Scriptures with a less tunnel-vision and a greater humility towards the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[CWBetts]

I think that when people such as this one comes along, we can use the experience as an exercise to improve our abilities and to deepen our Faith–there’s also the remotest chance that they might start reading the Holy Scriptures with a less tunnel-vision and a greater humility towards the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel

If you would read my other posts, you would see this assumption you have made about my faith (or what you pecieve as lack thereof) is ceratainly not true!

 

[jcrichton]

In one sense, you are correct. The original Greek does not really contain the word “home” in John 19:27. “And from that hour the disciple took her eis ta idia (idios means “one’s own”, “pertaining to self”, “belonging to one’s self”).” Idios here is a neuter adjective - while there are instances in Greek literature where it may imply “one’s own home” here it does not seem to so much represent a place (i.e. the beloved disciple’s house) as it does a disposition. Eis, meanwhile, is used to express an end, purpose, or goal in John’s Gospel (1:7, 4:14, 4:36, 6:9, 9:39, 12:7, 13:29, 18:37). In this usage eis is better rendered into English as “for” or “as”, i.e. “the disciple took her” for his own - which does not necessarily involve actually taking her to his own house.

Hi, Patrick!

I’m really ignorant when it comes to Biblical languages… could you explain to me if the text you’ve cited above demonstrates that there were other people to whom Jesus confided the care of His Mother? …and if John is not designated Mary’s only “guardian,” where is he supposed to take Mary, according to the text, to some communal home where a bunch of disciples will share on that responsibility?

If the language of the text does not demonstrate that John is now Mary’s only guardian and support, can there be anything in Scriptures that mean what the language of the text say?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If you would read my other posts, you would see this assumption you have made about my faith (or what you pecieve as lack thereof) is ceratainly not true!

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood… my reference is not to you but to the person who pretends to seek answers when he/she has already determined that they hold the truth–regardless of Scriptures, Sacred Tradition or Church history.

I’ve made no assumptions about you or your faith–I apologize if you have read such intent in my words.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joemccarron]

Yadda said:
“Not necessarily, many couples live chaste lives for many reasons may or may not have sexual relations. In the Book of Numbers [Chapter 22], it discusses women who make vows to the Lord [both while still living at home and when married] … if their fathers [or husbands] know and immediately do not nullify the vow made they are then bound by that vow … a young girl who made a vow of chastity [consecrated virgins] would still need a male protector. Look at Mary’s response at the annunciation … a betrothed woman told that she would bear a son would not respond “how can this be?” … the how is marital relations with person to whom she was betrothed… if she intended to have carnal relations at any time …”

Randy Carson made a similar point. I think this may be a very strong point but I want to understand it. I vaguely understand that marriage at that time involved 2steps, a betrothal and a second step. Am I to understand that it was permitted for the couple to have sexual relations during the betrothal? Hence it would be expected that they would have sexual relations during this time. Since Mary has indicated she and Joseph did not have sexual relations we, therefore, can gather that they did not intend their relationship to involve sexual relations.

2 other quick questions:

1. Would Joseph and Marry be considered married under Catholic teaching since they never consummated the marriage? (from the title of this thread I thought this was going to be asked)
2. Assuming the Gospels were written originally in Greek (I know there is some dispute here but I think the majority view is now that they were) If the Greek language had a word different than the word “brother” to describe cousins and the Gospel authors are inerrant then why did they use the Greek word that means “brother”? It seems they used the wrong Greek word here doesn’t it? Unless they are referring to a son of Joseph.

Again I’m referring to the Greek language not the Aramaic or Hebrew. Even if Hebrew doesn’t differentiate that seems no excuse for using the wrong Greek word.

Thanks in advance for any answers here.