Mary's other Children !?

[jdobbins]

If,as suggested by some,Mary had other children then it seems shr had not told them about or convinced them that unlike them Jesus was special.They thought He was insane and tried to restrain Him.In attempting to do this they were presumably older than Him so HE would not be the first born - any comments - twinc

Mary could not have had other children. She was unique in creation, prepared from her conception to be the mother of the Messiah, the mother of God incarnate. his unique role meant her life would be equally unique in terms of her misson and relationships. The references in scripture to Jesus’ brothers and sisters was a quirk of the language, there being no word for cousin. In Genesis, Lot is spoken of as Abrahm’s brother, when it is clear Lot was his nephew.
Jesus never violated Jewish law. At the crucifixion there is no way He could have given the care of His mother to John, as He did, if Jesus had siblings. Under Jewish law the sibings would have been obligated to care for the mother.

 

[Danno2281]

Panevino posted:

…Before that Jesus had brothers and sisters. But then Jerome, using very poor arguments, changed them into cousins because he didn’t like sex.

come on, thats a bit much ‘didn’t like sex’… do u have something to back that up.<<

“Now I want you children to be good until I return.” Does this mean, or even suggest, that the speaker wants them to cease being good uplon his return? Of course not! “Until” speaks only to the point up to which. It says absolutely nothing about after.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno 2281 posted:

First of all, there is no scripture that says that Mary was the mother of anyone other than Jesus.<<

Am I serious? Absolutely! None of those quotes says that they were born of Mary. A successful tradesman and his wife might very well have adopted other children realizing that they themselves would not be having any more.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno 2281 posted:

If Mary had other children, Jesus could not have given her to the care of St. John from the cross<<

It appears that you have misread the scripture. It is the disciple who takes Mary into his family, but first, Mary was given the disciple to be a member of her family - “Behold your son.” is the prior statement. In any case, the disciple and Mary are now “familiarized”. I am quite familiar with the Greek, and for our purposes here, you have made a distinction without a difference. The commandment to honor father and mother would still apply to any brothers or sisters.

 

[JP_Marat]

“Now I want you children to be good until I return.” Does this mean, or even suggest, that the speaker wants them to cease being good uplon his return? Of course not! “Until” speaks only to the point up to which. It says absolutely nothing about after.

RESPONSE:

It might. It is suggesting a condition that could/would change. If Mary was to remain a virgin beyond “until”, why would Matthew even have mentioned it?

Mary was a Jewish wife whose duty was to increase and multiply. Scripture lists her children as five sons and at least two daughters which evidently reside with her and are always in her company, no other father or mother being associated with them.

 

[TEPO]

As was stated by the other poster, Mary, Our Blessed Mother did not have any other children except for Jesus. As to Mary’s sister (or sister-in-law?) - Mary wife of Clopas she was the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Joses). Mark 15:40;

Was she the wife of Clopas or St. Alphaeus? Some scholars believe the two were the same. One being a Greek pronunciation the other --something else?

 

[JP_Marat]

It appears that you have misread the scripture. It is the disciple who takes Mary into his family, but first, Mary was given the disciple to be a member of her family - “Behold your son.” is the prior statement. In any case, the disciple and Mary are now “familiarized”. I am quite familiar with the Greek, and for our purposes here, you have made a distinction without a difference. The commandment to honor father and mother would still apply to any brothers or sisters.

RESPONSE:

I agree with what you have posted. Jesus first addresses Mary indicating that the beloved disciple is part of her family, and only then that Mary is part of the beloved disciple’s family.

But I don’t understand the connection with “The commandment to honor father and mother would still apply to any brothers or sisters.”

Please explain the last sentence’s connection with your prior statement.

 

[TEPO]

Was she the wife of Clopas or St. Alphaeus? Some scholars believe the two were the same. One being a Greek pronunciation the other --something else?

Remember, St. Alphaeus was the one on the road to Emmaeus who was approached by a man that walked some distance with them. They later discovered that the man they met was in fact Jesus!

Clopas and Alphaeus were the same… Were they not?

 

[JP_Marat]

Am I serious? Absolutely! None of those quotes says that they were born of Mary. A successful tradesman and his wife might very well have adopted other children realizing that they themselves would not be having any more.

RESPONSE:

"A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers and your sisters are outside asking for you.” But he said to them in reply, “Who are my mother and (my) brothers?”

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him."

All children have mothers. And the children’s brothers have that same mother too. Of course, there can be exceptions. But unless described otherwise, that’s the way it works.

 

[TEPO]

RESPONSE:

"A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers and your sisters are outside asking for you.” But he said to them in reply, “Who are my mother and (my) brothers?”

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him."

All children have mothers. And the children’s brothers have that same mother too. Of course, there can be exceptions. But unless described otherwise, that’s the way it works.

I have always been under the impression that in the original language, there is actually no distinction / or difference betweeen the words brother and cousin. So Jesus was speaking of his cousins.

 

[JP_Marat]

Mary could not have had other children. She was unique in creation, prepared from her conception to be the mother of the Messiah, the mother of God incarnate. his unique role meant her life would be equally unique in terms of her misson and relationships. The references in scripture to Jesus’ brothers and sisters was a quirk of the language, there being no word for cousin. In Genesis, Lot is spoken of as Abrahm’s brother, when it is clear Lot was his nephew.
Jesus never violated Jewish law. At the crucifixion there is no way He could have given the care of His mother to John, as He did, if Jesus had siblings. Under Jewish law the sibings would have been obligated to care for the mother.

RESPONSE:

As I already pointed out, the gospels and epistles were all written in Greek which has a **distinct word of brother **and another for cousin. Nowhere in either writings are Jesus’ brothers called cousins.

As has also been explained, the beloved disciple was given to Mary as a son, and Mary was given to the beloved disciple as a mother. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the care of Mary.

You are merely repeating both of St. Jerome’s errors.

 

[TEPO]

James the less was jesuses cousin, he had no brothers or sisters… Only cousins.

 

[Julian0404]

If,as suggested by some,Who exactly? Name them so we can discuss this in light of the error they teach. Once the true authors are known, they can be researched and discovered for their other false teachings. To use anonymous sources is weak.

Mary had other children then it seems shr had not told them about or convinced them that unlike them Jesus was special.And is this supposition also from “someone else”, or is this your own supposition based upon the anonymous source, which I suspect. Quite a leap even for a liberal to assume they know what Mary did or did not do as to teaching her “supposed other children” about Jesus

They thought He was insane and tried to restrain Him.So, now based upon an unfounded position by an unamed source, and inserting your own twisted assumption now you claim to know not only what the Virgin Mary did or did not do, but what Her other “other children” thought and attempted to do to Jesus.

In attempting to do this they were presumably older than Him Most certainly, no sense stopping with being a mind reader, now your an archeologist who has uncovered the birth records of all the “other children” so you can now presume to know that Jesus was not born of the “Virgin Mary”.

so HE would not be the first born -

any comments - twinc Yes, twinc, you use others to create lies, and then in post #14 you attempt to disassociate yourself from the lies by claiming “someone else” made me do it. It is a free world. You are entitled to your thoughts and opinion, but have the courage to claim them for your own - regardless of how foolish and unfounded they are.

 

[TEPO]

RESPONSE:

As I already pointed out, the gospels and epistles were all written in Greek which has a **distinct word of brother **and another for cousin. Nowhere in either writings are Jesus’ brothers called cousins.

As has also been explained, the beloved disciple was given to Mary as a son, and Mary was given to the beloved disciple as a mother. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the care of Mary.

You are merely repeating both of St. Jerome’s errors.

There are many unknowns about this subject… There are many language barriars… How can you say you are right?

Explain Clopas and Alphaeus.

Jesus had no brothers or sisters. Only cousins.

 

[Lutheranteach]

It’s probably, if you are looking for specific “real” evidence (as in walk into a court of law and prove your case, evidence) unknowable. Pretty good arguments in both directions.

 

[TEPO]

Well, as I pointed out earlier, Jesus had NO brothers or sisters, Alphaeus and Clopas were the same person, James the Less was Jesus’ cousin, the VIRGIN mother had a sister in law named Mary who was St. Alphaeus’ (Clopas) wife. This wife (Mary) was present at the crucifixion.

 

[Danno2281]

RESPONSE:

It might. It is suggesting a condition that could/would change. If Mary was to remain a virgin beyond “until”, why would Matthew even have mentioned it?

Mary was a Jewish wife whose duty was to increase and multiply. Scripture lists her children as five sons and at least two daughters which evidently reside with her and are always in her company, no other father or mother being associated with them.

Scripture does NOT EVER indicate that Mary gave birth to anyone other than Jesus. She may have raised other children, but NOWHERE in scripture does it indicate that she gave birth to abnyone other than Jesus. You are making assertions based upon assumptions that cannot be proved.

 

[TEPO]

Scripture does NOT EVER indicate that Mary gave birth to anyone other than Jesus. She may have raised other children, but NOWHERE in scripture does it indicate that she gave birth to abnyone other than Jesus. You are making assertions based upon assumptions that cannot be proved.

I dont know whats gotten into that Catholic?

Are Catholics even allowed to believe that?

Peace.

 

[adriancombe]

RESPONSE:

As I already pointed out, the gospels and epistles were all written in Greek which has a **distinct word of brother **and another for cousin. Nowhere in either writings are Jesus’ brothers called cousins.

As has also been explained, the beloved disciple was given to Mary as a son, and Mary was given to the beloved disciple as a mother. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the care of Mary.

You are merely repeating both of St. Jerome’s errors.

Actually, no. All this has been refuted. Since some appear not to have noticed the link to Randy Carson’s post which I provided, I will paste the content here:

QUOTE:

Let’s examine who James, Joses, Jude and Simon were, okay?

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
2. 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.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

1. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. 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.

END QUOTE

Credit and gratitude to Randy Carson of course.

 

[Danno2281]

RESPONSE:

As I already pointed out, the gospels and epistles were all written in Greek which has a **distinct word of brother **and another for cousin. Nowhere in either writings are Jesus’ brothers called cousins.

As has also been explained, the beloved disciple was given to Mary as a son, and Mary was given to the beloved disciple as a mother. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the care of Mary.

You are merely repeating both of St. Jerome’s errors.

Of course it has to do with caring for Mary, and that is precisely why the writer says that from that time the disciple took her as his own. But the fact of the commandment still stands for her “other children” if they existed, and it would have been their filial obligation to be her caretakers, not the disciple’s.
Just as a bit of an aside, in the sequence of words, why would Mary have been addressed first? Becaust in the view of the dying Jesus, gasping for one more breath, the degree of urgency for her to nurture the disciple was greater than the urgency for him to care for her!