F
fix
Guest
Please post #76. They had a valid, natural, marriage.
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, no she is not. She is mentioned as having Jesus as her son. The others are listed a familial relations and could just as easily be cousins (the Aramic word is the same) or even step-brother\sisters via Joseph and a previous marriage.
The only thing we know for certain from Mark6:3 is that Jesus is the son of Mary, and no one here doubts that.
B
Brendan
Guest
Not when the husband is a devout Jew and the wife gave birth to the Divine Messiah.
Joseph knew that his wife’s womb was a place where the Holy Spirit incarnated the very Son of God. It was now a place holier than the ground around the burning bush. It was holier than the symbolic dwelling place of God, the Sanctuary of the Temple. The Sanctuary of the Temple was so Holy that only the High Priest could enter, and even then, only on specific days. They even tied a rope and bells on the priest so they could pull the body out if he ever died in there (as no one else could go in to retrieve the body)
Joseph therefore knew that the womb of his wife was even more special than THAT and it had already been consecrated to another spouse, the Father of her son.
So, no, it would have been no more reasonable for Joseph to place his seed in the womb of Mary than it would be for him to place his seed in the Sanctuary of the Temple, and then wipe himself with the Temple curtain.
Devout Jews, (and Devout Catholics and Orthodox) understand the concept of “Holy Ground”, there there are places on Earth that are so Holy, so infused with the presence of God, that they have special reverence and are not treated as any other similar location.
That is a sense that has been lost in Protestantism and is really one of the big reasons why they don’t get Perpetual Virginity.
Sure, they will read about the area around the Burning Bush, or how God killed Uzza when he attempted to keep the Ark from falling off the cart. But they really don’t GET IT.
J
joemccarron
Guest
I’m not quite understanding your point. Correct me if I’m wrong but the Marriage process involved 2 steps a legal betrothal and then a moving in. This text can mean that it was before they moved in. If you read Mathew he does not need to establish she was a virgin by this phrase, he does it in spades in other places. Here is the relevant parts of Mathew 1:
"Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. "
Are you saying Mathew does not make it plain that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations unless we interpret “but before they lived together” as having a sexual meaning? It seems obvious this is not required. If other parts of the passage already establish that she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus why are you trying to say we must interpret this as meaning anything other than the second part of the wedding process did not take place yet – i.e.,. they hadn’t physically moved in together?
F
fix
Guest
Actually, by natural I was meaning it was not sacramental.
B
Brendan
Guest
Any marriage, Sacramental or Natural is valid after the parties give their consent. At that point, the two parties are married and are fully husband and wife.
It becomes dissoluable (unbreakable) once consumated.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
That is one way you can interpret “coming together,” yes.
And it can also mean something else. It seems like this comes up a lot with you guys. Exhibit A is the meaning of “brothers.” Every Catholic on here is very eager to share the fact that it can mean “brethren,” “friends,” “acquaintances,” “distant relative,” etc. Someone even made a list of them. That list had a conspicuous omission, though; one potential meaning that it seems he just plain forgot. “Brothers” can also mean “brothers.” The simple fact that you ignore it doesn’t make it go away. Please, at least acknowledge the possibility and try to convince me it’s not the best option. Don’t just leave it out. Let me show you how it’s done.
Likewise, this text could mean “before they moved in.” I acknowledge this possibility and ask you to acknowledge the possibility that it could also mean “before they had sex.” There are two possibilities. I start by acknowledging the existence of both. I’m not just ignoring one and hoping it will go away. I present both, and I present my reasons for saying one is better than the other.
Maybe that’s why you were confused- because you were acting as if one possibility existed and the other did not, and then you projected this strategy onto me, thinking I must be doing the same thing in reverse. That’s not what I’m doing, though. There are two possibilities, and I’m well aware of the existence of the one that you pretend is the only one. I want to make you aware of the existence of a second option and I also want to demonstrate its superiority to the first.
Are you less confused now?
The presentation of this fact- “before they came together”- is used to demonstrate that the prophecy of the virgin birth was fulfilled in Mary. If we arbitrarily go with Option A and say “before they moved in,” that doesn’t exactly tell you Mary was a virgin. If you go with Option B, though, and say it happened “before they had sex,” that puts the prophecy’s fulfillment in unambiguous terms. The “moving in” option is one that I readily admit exists, and I am telling you it’s the inferior one because it places the statement of prophetic fulfillment somewhere between “irrelevant” and “ambiguous.” Why would you talk about a prophecy concerning a virgin birth and then make a statement that has no bearing on Mary’s sexual activity? I’m sure you can convince yourself it makes a certain amount of sense, but you must at least admit that a second option exists that better fits with the presentation of this prophecy. The first step is admitting that a second option exists instead of stridently repeating one option over and over and over again as if it’s the only one out there.
Actually, this is one of only two places in the entire Bible where it says Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Unless you want to annul this one, of course.
I’m saying it’s one of only two places that says Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Don’t mess with half of that.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
His name isn’t Mary; therefore, there’s no contradiction.
Mary certainly had that option on the table. She just didn’t take it.
We know from the Bible that she did. The only place we “know” that she remained celibate is from the Protoevangelium of James and its descendants. But we don’t take those seriously, right?
Right?
Well, for you, not officially. But unofficially, they’re essential to the core of your faith. Only unofficially, though.
I do. Why do you not accept that the term “brother” and “sister” is also sometimes used to mean “brother” and “sister?” That’s quite the impressive list you have there, but it seems that you forgot the most obvious interpretive options. :sad_yes:
Can you show me an example that is somewhat similar to the way it’s used in Matthew 1? The mere mention of the word is not enough. That’s very sloppy scholarship. Here’s some basic guidelines: Start by looking at how it’s used in Matthew 1. Prior to the word “until,” a person or persons abstains from something. After the word “until,” it describes an event after which the parties involved continue to be alive and functioning.
As you look through all the examples of the word “until,” you’ll find that most of the ones you’re so eager to share with me involve something along the lines of “until the day he died.” There are also a few examples of people doing something 'til a certain point, and then they continue doing it. These aren’t sufficiently valid examples simply because they use the word “until,” though. The fact that someone’s action may sometimes continue past “until” has little to no bearing on predicting how abstinence from an action might interact with the same word. Likewise, the predictive value of a dead person’s actions in the event of an “until” has absolutely no value in predicting the actions of a living person.Once you identify all the valid examples where a person or people abstain from something until some sort of temporal event happens, you’ll find that 95% of the examples you hoped to share with me are gone, baby, gone. Now that I’ve demonstrated for what must be the sixth time exactly what I’m doing here, it’d be nice if I got some kind of “Oh, OK” instead of the same repetitive reaction- specifically, one exactly like the offer I am now responding to.
At times like these, it’s always helpful to organize things in columns. In one column, if you’ll imagine it with me for a moment, we have all the valid examples where “until” means “that person abstained before, but certainly not after.” There are over two dozen such valid examples, and every one of them has been completely ignored by everyone here. It’s a little disappointing, not gonna lie. Maybe I should actually create a physical chart. Maybe that would do the trick. Anyway, the other column has perhaps one or two valid examples where “until” does not mean the abstained-from action was no longer abstained from. And when the evidence is lined up, you completely ignore the two dozen valid examples supporting my interpretive perspective without a single reason being offered. At least I went to the trouble of telling you why the bulk of your examples are not valid. I don’t see anyone doing that on your end. You just ignore them and say “rotfl I laugh at you” as if you’ve proven something by doing that. I’m not as impressed as you might think.
I’d show you the one where Mary is the mother of James and Joses, but clearly you’ll disallow that- because it qualifies as a single mention of anyone other than Jesus being Mary’s son or daughter. Funny how that works.
N
nevadagardener
Guest
In reply your Post #128:
Such a WEAK fundamentalist argument, from protestants, using a partial description of one of the"Three Marys" present at the crucifixion.
Is that the best you can do? Use a partial description? The writer wasn’t trying to give a full geneaological accounting of the women present, just give us enough description of who was present by tying them back to their other best known family members, lacking last names in the culture at the time.
So, using your logic, then TWO of these Marys would also be the mothers of Jesus (which is obviously impossible); by the way it is written (in a lovely run-on sentence where the writer assumes we know who the characters are), you could also “read” that in. OR you could even conclude that Mary the mother of James and Joses is also (Mary) the mother of the sons of Zebedee, (which is also not possible), and that all are brothers, if you run those two descriptions together. I mean, if you want to take liberties and take things out of context, it goes both ways.
However, once we identify the three Marys in that sentence, and tie them back to the full descriptions of their families, anyone can see that there’s no way ANY of these Marys can also be the Mary who is the mother of Jesus. Nowhere in that paragraph does it state that Mary the mother of Jesus is also the mother of James and Joses. AND it is described they were physically in different locations at the time of the description, hence two different people.
You can pervert it if you want to, or lazily try to conclude it, but if you track back the characters, as we have done on the thread “Jesus had Siblings?”, all you do is embarass yourself at your lack of research.
Once again, without repeating the entire thread, I’ll repost a little of it:
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”.
The following passages tell us that there were actually four Marys at the Crucifixion, Our Lady, at the Foot of the Cross, and three others, elsewhere: One of whom is also referenced as the mother of James, Joseph/Joses, and Salome, which further backs up what we talk about on the thread, “Jesus had Siblings”.
"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."
St. John’s Gospel, Ch.19 Vs. 25 begins the beautiful story of Our Blessed Mother at The Cross with St. John. Here Jesus entrusts the care of His Mother to John. Please note The Blessed Mother is at the foot of the cross. Mk.15:25-26 states Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joses and Salome, were looking on from a distance.
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 “Jesus had Siblings?” 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!
Please see my next post.
Such a WEAK fundamentalist argument, from protestants, using a partial description of one of the"Three Marys" present at the crucifixion.
Is that the best you can do? Use a partial description? The writer wasn’t trying to give a full geneaological accounting of the women present, just give us enough description of who was present by tying them back to their other best known family members, lacking last names in the culture at the time.
So, using your logic, then TWO of these Marys would also be the mothers of Jesus (which is obviously impossible); by the way it is written (in a lovely run-on sentence where the writer assumes we know who the characters are), you could also “read” that in. OR you could even conclude that Mary the mother of James and Joses is also (Mary) the mother of the sons of Zebedee, (which is also not possible), and that all are brothers, if you run those two descriptions together. I mean, if you want to take liberties and take things out of context, it goes both ways.
However, once we identify the three Marys in that sentence, and tie them back to the full descriptions of their families, anyone can see that there’s no way ANY of these Marys can also be the Mary who is the mother of Jesus. Nowhere in that paragraph does it state that Mary the mother of Jesus is also the mother of James and Joses. AND it is described they were physically in different locations at the time of the description, hence two different people.
You can pervert it if you want to, or lazily try to conclude it, but if you track back the characters, as we have done on the thread “Jesus had Siblings?”, all you do is embarass yourself at your lack of research.
Once again, without repeating the entire thread, I’ll repost a little of it:
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”.
The following passages tell us that there were actually four Marys at the Crucifixion, Our Lady, at the Foot of the Cross, and three others, elsewhere: One of whom is also referenced as the mother of James, Joseph/Joses, and Salome, which further backs up what we talk about on the thread, “Jesus had Siblings”.
"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."
St. John’s Gospel, Ch.19 Vs. 25 begins the beautiful story of Our Blessed Mother at The Cross with St. John. Here Jesus entrusts the care of His Mother to John. Please note The Blessed Mother is at the foot of the cross. Mk.15:25-26 states Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joses and Salome, were looking on from a distance.
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 “Jesus had Siblings?” 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!
Please see my next post.
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Second Post of Installment:
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.
By the way, Cleophas is also aka Alphaeus, aka Clopas.
Randy Carson gives another description of the “brothers” and their parents, in Post 13 of this same thread, which you continue to ignore, but I’ll repost it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmcounts
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).
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?
Of course I have problems with it. It flies in the face of 2,000 years of Church teaching. Even the Protestant Reformers accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
As for these so-called “brothers” and “sisters”, you should learn a bit about the limitations of Aramaic. Even Abraham called his nephew, Lot, “brother” because he had no other word for his own brother’s son. Nephew, Niece and Cousin were unknown terms in that language.
But look, don’t take my word for it…what does God’s Word have to say?
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:
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.
By the way, Cleophas is also aka Alphaeus, aka Clopas.
Randy Carson gives another description of the “brothers” and their parents, in Post 13 of this same thread, which you continue to ignore, but I’ll repost it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmcounts
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).
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?
Of course I have problems with it. It flies in the face of 2,000 years of Church teaching. Even the Protestant Reformers accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
As for these so-called “brothers” and “sisters”, you should learn a bit about the limitations of Aramaic. Even Abraham called his nephew, Lot, “brother” because he had no other word for his own brother’s son. Nephew, Niece and Cousin were unknown terms in that language.
But look, don’t take my word for it…what does God’s Word have to say?
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:
- Jesus had a “brother” named James.
- James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.
- There are two apostles named James.
- One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.
- The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.
- Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Third Post of Installment
Randy + † +
Another obvious position, regarding those questioning the “brothers” of Jesus, which indicate the crowd’s lack of understanding of The Holy Family: Clearly, all through the upbringing of Jesus, those nosy neighbors were “allowed” to believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the carpenter. Why? Had they even tried to reveal that Joseph was his “foster” father, the Son of Mary alone, in fact, the Son of God, Jesus would have been murdered, and those who perpetrated the heresy, Joseph and Mary, would have also. So, if they wanted to live in this little town of Nazareth in safety, the truth would have to be revealed in its own time, and it never happened in Joseph’s time; in fact, not until after Joseph’s death.
To Jesus’s first and second cousins, growing up, it was also likely kept mum, for the same reasons. You can imagine it might have been whispered with Joseph’s brother, Saint Cleophas, and his wife, Mary of Cleophas, in secrecy; perhaps with others of Joseph’s four other brothers, we don’t know. The adults had to be pretty fearful of what would happen, and would want to protect their families. They were a pretty tight group, as we discuss on the “Siblings” thread. It wasn’t until John and James, Jesus’s second cousins, became disciples of Saint John the Baptist (Jesus’s second cousin), and word got out during His baptism at the Jordan, as to the fact that He was the Messiah, and then they recognized Him as Such when He called them to be His Apostles while they were fishing, and the Ministry began, that it was ever recorded as being discussed. See our discussions about this on the thread, “Jesus had Siblings?”.
At that time, He surrounded himself with His most trusted friends, five of whom were His first and second cousins, and two more who were business partners of the second cousins (Peter and Andrew), as His Apostles. The choosing of the Apostles was no random event among strangers. He knew for whom He was looking, and where they would be, that Eventful Day at the Lake (also discussed on the “Siblings” thread). After that, in numerous references, it was always James, John, and Peter (their fishing partner), to whom Jesus was closest.
This also explains, at times, the cousins’ seemingly lack of understanding or belief, and Jesus’s frustration with them, as they come to grips with Who Jesus Is. And that the prophesy has come to pass in their lifetimes, and among their own family. And, when they call Him “crazy” and suggest He’d have better luck starting His Ministry in another town, since everyone knew them all already in this one. Everyone knows the definition of an “Expert” is someone over 100 miles from home.
Revelations to the Cousins: Jesus as the Messiah was only recorded as being revealed to Saint Elizabeth by God/The Holy Sprit, and to her son, Saint John the Baptist, Jesus’s second cousin, who leapt in her womb at the recognition of the Savior in the womb of Mary at the Visitation.
John the Baptist knew who Jesus was, hence “One is coming who is greater than I, and I will not be fit to untie the strap of His sandal …”, but could not, dared not, reveal it, until Jesus asked him to, at the Baptism at the Jordan, when He was ready to begin His Ministry. And then, when the Heavens parted, and God spoke, the Ministry began. And then, John the Baptist pointed out Jesus, as the Messiah, to John. A second cousin reveals the truth to another second cousin, on the other side of the family. More than likely the two Johns had originally gotten to know each other at Jesus’s family events, and John had already become a disciple of John the Baptist, but the revelation of Jesus as Messiah wasn’t recorded until those passages. By the way, Peter and Andrew were also followers of John the Baptist, and everyone was awaiting John the Baptist’s revelation. (See the thread.)
Once the Ministry began, all were the followers, aka disciples, aka “brothers and sisters” of the Lord, and by extension sons and daughters of His mother, Mary, who traveled with them, for her safety, after that.
Please see my final post:
- The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.
- Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.
- While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. The same concept may be applied to the “sisters”, as well.
Randy + † +
Another obvious position, regarding those questioning the “brothers” of Jesus, which indicate the crowd’s lack of understanding of The Holy Family: Clearly, all through the upbringing of Jesus, those nosy neighbors were “allowed” to believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the carpenter. Why? Had they even tried to reveal that Joseph was his “foster” father, the Son of Mary alone, in fact, the Son of God, Jesus would have been murdered, and those who perpetrated the heresy, Joseph and Mary, would have also. So, if they wanted to live in this little town of Nazareth in safety, the truth would have to be revealed in its own time, and it never happened in Joseph’s time; in fact, not until after Joseph’s death.
To Jesus’s first and second cousins, growing up, it was also likely kept mum, for the same reasons. You can imagine it might have been whispered with Joseph’s brother, Saint Cleophas, and his wife, Mary of Cleophas, in secrecy; perhaps with others of Joseph’s four other brothers, we don’t know. The adults had to be pretty fearful of what would happen, and would want to protect their families. They were a pretty tight group, as we discuss on the “Siblings” thread. It wasn’t until John and James, Jesus’s second cousins, became disciples of Saint John the Baptist (Jesus’s second cousin), and word got out during His baptism at the Jordan, as to the fact that He was the Messiah, and then they recognized Him as Such when He called them to be His Apostles while they were fishing, and the Ministry began, that it was ever recorded as being discussed. See our discussions about this on the thread, “Jesus had Siblings?”.
At that time, He surrounded himself with His most trusted friends, five of whom were His first and second cousins, and two more who were business partners of the second cousins (Peter and Andrew), as His Apostles. The choosing of the Apostles was no random event among strangers. He knew for whom He was looking, and where they would be, that Eventful Day at the Lake (also discussed on the “Siblings” thread). After that, in numerous references, it was always James, John, and Peter (their fishing partner), to whom Jesus was closest.
This also explains, at times, the cousins’ seemingly lack of understanding or belief, and Jesus’s frustration with them, as they come to grips with Who Jesus Is. And that the prophesy has come to pass in their lifetimes, and among their own family. And, when they call Him “crazy” and suggest He’d have better luck starting His Ministry in another town, since everyone knew them all already in this one. Everyone knows the definition of an “Expert” is someone over 100 miles from home.
Revelations to the Cousins: Jesus as the Messiah was only recorded as being revealed to Saint Elizabeth by God/The Holy Sprit, and to her son, Saint John the Baptist, Jesus’s second cousin, who leapt in her womb at the recognition of the Savior in the womb of Mary at the Visitation.
John the Baptist knew who Jesus was, hence “One is coming who is greater than I, and I will not be fit to untie the strap of His sandal …”, but could not, dared not, reveal it, until Jesus asked him to, at the Baptism at the Jordan, when He was ready to begin His Ministry. And then, when the Heavens parted, and God spoke, the Ministry began. And then, John the Baptist pointed out Jesus, as the Messiah, to John. A second cousin reveals the truth to another second cousin, on the other side of the family. More than likely the two Johns had originally gotten to know each other at Jesus’s family events, and John had already become a disciple of John the Baptist, but the revelation of Jesus as Messiah wasn’t recorded until those passages. By the way, Peter and Andrew were also followers of John the Baptist, and everyone was awaiting John the Baptist’s revelation. (See the thread.)
Once the Ministry began, all were the followers, aka disciples, aka “brothers and sisters” of the Lord, and by extension sons and daughters of His mother, Mary, who traveled with them, for her safety, after that.
Please see my final post:
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Final Post of Installment
Really, if I have to, I’ll repost everything from the “Siblings” thread referencing Saint Cleophas (aka Alphaeus aka Clopas), Saint Mary of Cleophas (his wife), Saint Mary Salome (their daughter), and all four of their sons, the “brethren” James and Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas (who are actually Jesus’s first cousins), and Saint Mary Salome and Zebedee’s sons James and John (Jesus’s second cousins). I mean, it’s LONG. Or, you can just go read it for yourself. At some point, you have to confront your ignorance, and educate yourself for the sake of your own soul, unless it is your agenda to hang onto your ignorance in order to make a flimsy point. You’ve simply got to read the writings of others and try to understand as historical and biblical fact who these characters are. And who they AREN’T. Then, you’ll quit trying to read meanings into passages that simply aren’t there.
Perhaps, as Scott Hahn did, once you do your research, you’ll also have to admit the Catholics got it right, and convert to the true faith? That’s what you’re afraid of, isn’t it? He didn’t want to convert, either, a lifelong protestant, in fact fought against it for a long time, but finally, he could not deny it any longer. But, the truth will set you free. We will welcome you, “brother”!
(Little play on words, there. I’m certain you are not my blood brother. An error of fundamentalists, this.) But, as Jesus is my Brother, we are all brothers and sisters, as followers of Christ referred to each other, then as now, in the family of Heaven. Hope to see you there, someday.
Really, if I have to, I’ll repost everything from the “Siblings” thread referencing Saint Cleophas (aka Alphaeus aka Clopas), Saint Mary of Cleophas (his wife), Saint Mary Salome (their daughter), and all four of their sons, the “brethren” James and Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas (who are actually Jesus’s first cousins), and Saint Mary Salome and Zebedee’s sons James and John (Jesus’s second cousins). I mean, it’s LONG. Or, you can just go read it for yourself. At some point, you have to confront your ignorance, and educate yourself for the sake of your own soul, unless it is your agenda to hang onto your ignorance in order to make a flimsy point. You’ve simply got to read the writings of others and try to understand as historical and biblical fact who these characters are. And who they AREN’T. Then, you’ll quit trying to read meanings into passages that simply aren’t there.
Perhaps, as Scott Hahn did, once you do your research, you’ll also have to admit the Catholics got it right, and convert to the true faith? That’s what you’re afraid of, isn’t it? He didn’t want to convert, either, a lifelong protestant, in fact fought against it for a long time, but finally, he could not deny it any longer. But, the truth will set you free. We will welcome you, “brother”!
(Little play on words, there. I’m certain you are not my blood brother. An error of fundamentalists, this.) But, as Jesus is my Brother, we are all brothers and sisters, as followers of Christ referred to each other, then as now, in the family of Heaven. Hope to see you there, someday.
J
jcrichton
Guest
You are dancing around the issue. The issue is that of celibacy. You express no problems with St. Paul’s determination to be celibate yet you have a problem with Joseph and Mary living a celibate life! There is contradiction in your ethos.
No! What we know from Scriptures is that Jesus had relatives and/or clan/tribe members.
…as Hanna Montana would put it “…say what, say what?”
You must read me more carefully–yet, as you put it, it is your interpretive option that allows you to ignore all of the factors that distinguish the statement about Jesus’ brethren and Mary’s sons and daughters! Not once in Scriptures (get a hold of the sola Scriptura people) is anyone other than Jesus atributed to have been born of Mary’s womb!
This, again, goes to your enterpretive option; the term “until” (or its similar grammatical value) is used throughout Scriptures from the Old to the New Testament; yet, it only takes your particular value when your enterpretive option is applied to that one particular passage where you want Scripture to express something particular about your conception of Mary’s and Joseph’s sexual life.
I guess you have decided to answer several post at once?!!
No… you may show a Mary being the mother of James and Joses; sadly, you refuse to accept that there are several Marys being mentioned and Jesus’s Mother (Mary) is not the same Mary to which James and Joses are attributed as being her sons.
Maran atha!
Angel
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Wow! “Enterpretive Option” means you just get to believe whatever you want to make up?
Some of us prefer to deal in facts, and prefer to give you the Facts about this Mary, the mother of James and Joseph/Joses, from the thread “Jesus had Siblings?”.
Re: Jesus had Siblings? More about Mary of Cleophas
Hello PaulC and Everyone:
Thanks for your interest. Over the week I had a chance to address your concerns to the folks at the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I received a response from Brother Andre Marie, whose full address is given below, who referenced back to the following Scriptural references (taken from an earlier response of a letter he had written):
… Mary never had other children. My response: There is no place in the Bible that says, “Mary never had other children.” Neither are there places that say that “Mary had other children.” Again, it is the Protestant (human) tradition that says she did (although not all Protestants believe this). There are passages in the Bible that you may interpret to mean that Mary had other children, but there are more sensible explanations of these passages that are consistent with all of Scripture, especially Luke 1:34 ff., where it is made obvious that Mary never intended to have normal marital relations. Also, interpreted by the authentic tradition of the Church — the “pillar and ground of the truth” — these passages clearly do not mean the Blessed Virgin had other children. St. Jerome, who, in the late fourth century, at the pope’s behest, translated the Bible into the Latin language, which was the commonly spoken western language at that time, wrote a treatise in defense of the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity against the novel teachings of a heretic named Helvidius.
As an example of such misappropriation, let us take the case of St. James the Less whom, no doubt, you allege was our Lord’s blood brother, since St. Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord” in Gal. 1:19. Three times the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists to identify this Apostle as the son of Alpheus, not Joseph. (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke. 6:15) The mother of this James was also named Mary, and she is identified as one of the other women, besides the Blessed Virgin, standing beneath the cross of Christ. Here she is called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin (John. 19:25). Unless we are to assume that two girls in the same family were given the same first name, the word “sister” here used must mean “relative,” “cousin,” or, perhaps, if she were married to the brother of St. Joseph, even “sister-in-law.” Therefore, James the Less, son of Alpheus (also called, in holy scripture, by his Greek name of Cleophas), was our Lord’s cousin. This is still a common practice among the Semitic people to call one’s cousin a brother or sister. Furthermore, if Jesus had other brothers from Mary, His mother, then why did the Savior, as He was dying on the cross, give her to the care of John? For James, Simon, Jude, and Joseph are all called the Lord’s “brethren” in the Gospel. I did a more detailed study on this that I could send you, if you are interested.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Homepage, www.catholicism.org
This next is taken from the website www.smcenter.org, the Saint Michael Center for the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church remembers the feastday of Saint Mary of Cleophas on April 9, and the following is her description from the website:
Notice, the above fails to mention Saint Joseph Barsabas, their fourth son, not an apostle, commonly referred to as “Joseph or Joses, the brother of James”, in many passages. While not appointed one of the original Twelve by Jesus, we do know that he was considered opposite Matthias as the replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot by the 11 Apostles (see Acts of the Apostles). Apparently there was a prayerful casting of lots, and Matthias won the majority. Saint Joseph Barsabas and Matthias were both considered because they had been present from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
Please see next post:
Some of us prefer to deal in facts, and prefer to give you the Facts about this Mary, the mother of James and Joseph/Joses, from the thread “Jesus had Siblings?”.
Re: Jesus had Siblings? More about Mary of Cleophas
Hello PaulC and Everyone:
Thanks for your interest. Over the week I had a chance to address your concerns to the folks at the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I received a response from Brother Andre Marie, whose full address is given below, who referenced back to the following Scriptural references (taken from an earlier response of a letter he had written):
… Mary never had other children. My response: There is no place in the Bible that says, “Mary never had other children.” Neither are there places that say that “Mary had other children.” Again, it is the Protestant (human) tradition that says she did (although not all Protestants believe this). There are passages in the Bible that you may interpret to mean that Mary had other children, but there are more sensible explanations of these passages that are consistent with all of Scripture, especially Luke 1:34 ff., where it is made obvious that Mary never intended to have normal marital relations. Also, interpreted by the authentic tradition of the Church — the “pillar and ground of the truth” — these passages clearly do not mean the Blessed Virgin had other children. St. Jerome, who, in the late fourth century, at the pope’s behest, translated the Bible into the Latin language, which was the commonly spoken western language at that time, wrote a treatise in defense of the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity against the novel teachings of a heretic named Helvidius.
As an example of such misappropriation, let us take the case of St. James the Less whom, no doubt, you allege was our Lord’s blood brother, since St. Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord” in Gal. 1:19. Three times the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists to identify this Apostle as the son of Alpheus, not Joseph. (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke. 6:15) The mother of this James was also named Mary, and she is identified as one of the other women, besides the Blessed Virgin, standing beneath the cross of Christ. Here she is called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin (John. 19:25). Unless we are to assume that two girls in the same family were given the same first name, the word “sister” here used must mean “relative,” “cousin,” or, perhaps, if she were married to the brother of St. Joseph, even “sister-in-law.” Therefore, James the Less, son of Alpheus (also called, in holy scripture, by his Greek name of Cleophas), was our Lord’s cousin. This is still a common practice among the Semitic people to call one’s cousin a brother or sister. Furthermore, if Jesus had other brothers from Mary, His mother, then why did the Savior, as He was dying on the cross, give her to the care of John? For James, Simon, Jude, and Joseph are all called the Lord’s “brethren” in the Gospel. I did a more detailed study on this that I could send you, if you are interested.
In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Homepage, www.catholicism.org
This next is taken from the website www.smcenter.org, the Saint Michael Center for the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church remembers the feastday of Saint Mary of Cleophas on April 9, and the following is her description from the website:
- Saint Mary of Cleophas (First Century).
Notice, the above fails to mention Saint Joseph Barsabas, their fourth son, not an apostle, commonly referred to as “Joseph or Joses, the brother of James”, in many passages. While not appointed one of the original Twelve by Jesus, we do know that he was considered opposite Matthias as the replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot by the 11 Apostles (see Acts of the Apostles). Apparently there was a prayerful casting of lots, and Matthias won the majority. Saint Joseph Barsabas and Matthias were both considered because they had been present from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
Please see next post:
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Continued from Previous Post:
Additional websites do mention him, in addition to the scriptural references, as one of the four brothers, and Mary as the wife of Cleophas, with Cleophas being the brother of Saint Joseph (foster father of Jesus, husband of the Virgin). Check out the following, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org.
Mary of Cleophas
This title occurs only in John 19:25. A comparison of the lists of those who stood at the foot of the cross would seem to identify her with Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Mark 15:40; cf. Matthew 27:56). … In the narratives of the Resurrection she is named “Mary of James”; (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10) and “the other Mary” (Matthew 27:61; 28:1). The title of “Mary of James” is obscure. If it stood alone, we should feel inclined to render it “wife of (or sister of) James”, but the recurrence of the expression “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” compels us to render it in the same way when we only read “Mary of James”. … James is termed “of Alpheus”, i.e. presumably “son of Alpheus”. St. Jerome would identify this Alpheus with Cleophas who, according to Hegesippus, was brother to St. Joseph (Hist. eccl., III, xi). In this case Mary of Cleophas, or Alpheus, would be the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, and the term “sister”, adelphe, in John 19:25, would cover this.
There is so much more about her and the “cousins” over at the thread, and I am going to highly encourage you to take a look over there. There are some pretty interesting historical accounts, as well as Biblical accounts.
Enjoy!
Additional websites do mention him, in addition to the scriptural references, as one of the four brothers, and Mary as the wife of Cleophas, with Cleophas being the brother of Saint Joseph (foster father of Jesus, husband of the Virgin). Check out the following, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org.
Mary of Cleophas
This title occurs only in John 19:25. A comparison of the lists of those who stood at the foot of the cross would seem to identify her with Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Mark 15:40; cf. Matthew 27:56). … In the narratives of the Resurrection she is named “Mary of James”; (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10) and “the other Mary” (Matthew 27:61; 28:1). The title of “Mary of James” is obscure. If it stood alone, we should feel inclined to render it “wife of (or sister of) James”, but the recurrence of the expression “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” compels us to render it in the same way when we only read “Mary of James”. … James is termed “of Alpheus”, i.e. presumably “son of Alpheus”. St. Jerome would identify this Alpheus with Cleophas who, according to Hegesippus, was brother to St. Joseph (Hist. eccl., III, xi). In this case Mary of Cleophas, or Alpheus, would be the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, and the term “sister”, adelphe, in John 19:25, would cover this.
There is so much more about her and the “cousins” over at the thread, and I am going to highly encourage you to take a look over there. There are some pretty interesting historical accounts, as well as Biblical accounts.
Enjoy!
M
mmmcounts
Guest
I’m glad you made that comparison. Let’s consider the example of the bush for a moment. While it’s burning (without being consumed), you feel quite compelled to take off your sandals because it’s a holy place. But what’s it like after the fire is gone? Sure, it’s kind of cool that the bush used to be burning. But it’s not the same anymore. Likewise, before the bush was burning, it was just a bush. I’m sure it was a very nice bush as bushes go, but still- just a bush.
This is just the sort of thing I would compare Mary to. Her womb was quite the special little dwelling place for Jesus while she was pregnant. Perhaps this is just the reason for why Joseph did not have sex with her until the baby was born. The bush was no longer burning, and he could feel free to put his sandals back on.
Btw, if you feel that this implies that Joseph had sex with her after the baby was born, that’s because it does.
As with the burning bush, the shekinah glory of God exited this place, as well. I believe it was Ezekiel who wrote about his vision in which it left. Did that change things substantially? I should say so.
So what happened to the Holy of Holies once God stopped utilizing it as His dwelling place? There were quite a few people who went in and ransacked it after that unfortunate development- and in 70 AD, the whole shebang was destroyed entirely.
So it makes sense for him to hold off on having sex with her while carrying the Son of God within her. Very good. But what about after giving birth? Surely you’re not suggesting that Mary possesses deity-like qualities in and of herself. Right?
Ahh, nice analogy. You know, there was a time when that sort of act would have been quite literally impossible. The offending party would have been struck dead on the spot. Of course, after God stopped dwelling within the Temple, people could (and did) get away with this sort of thing.
The only thing wrong with your analogy is that you’ve attempted to equate sex within the bounds of marriage with something that’s inherently sinful and wrong. Would it have been inherently sinful and wrong for Joseph, the husband of Mary, to have sex with her? I think not. It might have felt a little inappropriate for them while she was pregnant, but that’s probably the exact reason why they held off during that time.
Oh please. Are you really trying to make this argument from the position of one who is superior in his knowledge of and reverence for the things of God? Don’t be that guy.
Really, please. Don’t be that guy.
Sure I get it. But there was a point where the bush stopped burning, just as there was a point where Mary gave birth to Jesus. So what happened then? I leave it to you.
B
budgie2
Guest
I agree with you that Mary’s womb was a holy of holies or tabernacle for the body of Christ. It could also be compared to a monstrance. Just back to the OP, no Mary and Joseph were not really and truly husband and wife and only married in law. It was not a union of the flesh as the marriage was not consummated and could be considered null and void in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It could be seen as a spiritual marriage (compare to St. Francis Assisi and St. Clare) however they would have had to have a unique relationship. Their marriage was based discipleship of Christ rather than commitment to the other and is also the precedent of the celibate female orders. The holy family is the beginning of the family of the Church and Christ’s family is not an ordinary one.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
No that’s wrong. You are suggesting that Mary and Joseph were “legally” married, but in fact were dissembling, and acting in defiance of the intent of the law. This could never be said! Mary and Joseph were married legally under Mosaic Law, and lived according to the Mosaic Law in all perfection. There was NO legal requirement for consummation. If there had been, then they would not have been able to remain married. Their marriage was perfectly valid and true, and was not some sort of “virtual” marriage as you have suggested. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, there would have been no declaration of “null and void” had both parties never filed a grievance. In fact the Catholic Church REQUIRED married priests to abstain from all carnal relations with his wife once he was ordained in the early Church. Yet they were still considered married, and their marriage was not declared null and void. You will also notice that when a couple marry in the Catholic Church there is no promise to have carnal relations involved.
F
fix
Guest
This is not true. Please see post #76.
- Status