I don’t think that the “adelphe” is Mary the wife of Clopas or Mary Magdalene. Is that what you are saying? This “adelphe” is a 4th unnamed woman and not a descriptor of either of the other 2 women. Why couldn’t it be Mary’s biological sister (or sister-in-law)? Is there evidence that she was an only child?Susanlo:
In John 19:25.
St. John the Evangelist refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as the “sister” (adelphe) of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
JOHN 19:25 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister (adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
If you want to argue that they were biologic “sisters” other than a circular argument that the word “adelphe” is used, than I’m going to have to see some evidence.
Yes it would.Would it actually contradict any Catholic teaching if Mary ever “knew” Joseph?
That’s fine Susanlo.Why couldn’t it be Mary’s biological sister (or sister-in-law)? Is there evidence that she was an only child?
He wrote that she fulfilled sanctity of monogamy and continence. She was a virgin when she was carrying Jesus (continence), and after the delivery she was a wife of one husband (monogamy).:nope:
Re-read that Tertullian quote and let me know where he advocated what you’re thinking he advocated.
Same guy, same passage:
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? who is the first to recognise Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.”
Tertullian,On Monogamy,8(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:65
Check the bold parts particularly.
Would you like to try again?
We don’t know her name. At the cross were: 1. his mother 2. his mother’s sister 3. Mary the wife of Clopas 4. Mary MagdaleneSusanlo. You said . . .
That’s fine Susanlo.
If you are going to argue (without evidence) that the parents named BOTH sisters (from the same womb) . . . the SAME NAME (“Mary”) . . . you go ahead and think that.
If it is her “in-law”, you just made my point; that adelphe/adelphos CAN extend beyond the “uterine siblings” scenario.
You are right drblank1.Cathoholic, you were going to a point but we got sidetracked.
We DO know her name. It was “Mary” the wife of Clopas.We don’t know her name.
google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=boxer+named+all+his+kids+the+sameForeman has ten children, and each of his five sons is named George: George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, and George VI. They are also known by the nicknames “Monk”, “Red”, “Joe” “Big Wheel” and “Little George”. His five daughters are Michi, Georgetta, Freda George, Natalie, and Leola.
Susanlo. If you want to pretend that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary (the wife of Clopas) are uterine siblings that’s fine. Go ahead and think that.JOHN 19:25 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister (adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
JOHN 19:25 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister (adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
I do see some commentaries that say there were only 3 (and some that there were only 2) described here. It looks like 4 women to me. But if the same woman was married to Clopas and an adelphe to Jesus’ mother than that could mean that: biological sisters had the same name (unlikely - I agree), they were step-sisters, or Clopas was Mary or Joseph’s brother and therefore the 2 Marys were sisters-in-law. It is highly unlikely that this is the only time in the Greek New Testament that adelphe is used for cousin instead of anepsios or sungenis. Anepsios means cousin and sungenis means relative/kin. These would be the words to use if the 2 Marys were cousins or distant relatives.Susanlo:
We DO know her name. It was “Mary” the wife of Clopas.
And Mary was an adelphe of Mary the Mother of Jesus.
And I am saying this suggests they were NOT uterine siblings. (Parents don’t usually name all their kids the same name.
Even George Foreman who named all his sons after HIMSELF (“George”), gave them differing numbers.
google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=boxer+named+all+his+kids+the+same
Susanlo. If you want to pretend that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary (the wife of Clopas) are uterine siblings that’s fine. Go ahead and think that.
Mary’s sister could have been Salome the wife of Zebedrr and mother of James and John.Susanlo:
We DO know her name. It was “Mary” the wife of Clopas.
And Mary was an adelphe of Mary the Mother of Jesus.
And I am saying this suggests they were NOT uterine siblings. (Parents don’t usually name all their kids the same name.
Even George Foreman who named all his sons after HIMSELF (“George”), gave them differing numbers.
google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=boxer+named+all+his+kids+the+same
Susanlo. If you want to pretend that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary (the wife of Clopas) are uterine siblings that’s fine. Go ahead and think that.
For purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant . . . if there were TEN Mary’s.I do see some commentaries that say there were only 3 (and some that there were only 2) described here. It looks like 4 women to me.
(emphasis and formatting mine from here)(George) Foreman has ten children, and each of his five sons is named George:
George Jr.,
George III,
George IV,
George V,
and George VI.
They are also known by the nicknames “Monk”, “Red”, “Joe” “Big Wheel” and
“Little George”.
His five daughters are Michi,
Georgetta,
Freda George,
Natalie, and Leola.
I think you are probably spot-on regarding this James248:thumbsup:.Mary’s sister could have been Salome the wife of Zebedrr and mother of James and John.
. . . .argument is, I am not saying they (the Marys who were adelphe) were “cousins”. Susanlo ADDED that. They may have been close relatives or fellow Tribeswomen.adelphe is used for cousin instead of anepsios or sungenis
She indeed was a virgin her whole life, but why does that mean her hymen did not break?
Because Isaiah tells us a “young woman” who is a “virgin” will conceive AND BEAR a son.Genuinely curious.
This “not touching” would be in the sense of the conjugal realm.
And the Bible SHOWS that consecration in that (conjugal) realm.
That’s WHY St. Joseph “knew her not, until she bore a son”.
WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” at ANY TIME during their marriage?
After all. It’s not a “sin” or “dirty” for a man to have relations with his wife even if she is “with child”.
That’s the question St. Jerome asked the heretic Helvidius too.
WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” at ANY TIME during their marriage?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14728814&postcount=57What are you arguments for this?
OK, thanks for the insight.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14728814&postcount=57
Then I never finished this thought.
drblank1. You asked me to finish it here (I think you were talking about this thought) . . . .
St. Jerome to the heretic Helvidius (formatting by me) . . . .
ST. JEROME 8. In short, what** I want to know is why** Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery?
Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, Matthew 1:20 that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, Matthew 1:20 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.
The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress.
**Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? **
Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her?
And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent!
We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards,
when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will; and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation; and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels;
Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?
newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Here is the rest of the thought in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas too (again formatting mine)
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS . . . . Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.
For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ’s perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect,
so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother,
as being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose “shrine” was the virginal womb “Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti” (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful,
were she not content with such a Son;
and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity
which had been miraculously preserved in her.
Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of
**extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her **
whom by the angel’s revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God,
as she was a virgin in conceiving Him
and a virgin in giving Him birth,
did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.
— St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. Third Part. Article 3, Question 28.
Why not ask your priest this stuff. He has the theology educationOK, thanks for the insight.
So can you summarize in your own thoughts/beliefs what would have changed if Joseph has sex with Mary?
Seeing this takes a lot of meditation.So can you summarize in your own thoughts/beliefs what would have changed if Joseph has sex with Mary?
And you said:Could you summarize your thoughts concerning abstention while Mary is carrying Jesus?
By that I think you meant . . . .Joseph abstain because she was carrying Jesus.
This was Jesus most intimate earthly dwelling place for nine months. Think about that,Joseph abstained TEMPORARILY because she was carrying Jesus.
(You think it was TEMPORARILY even though the Bible never says this. St. Joseph was not ordered to abstain. He was told to take Mary into his home. She was his wife. The Ark was not “temporarily” consecrated. How much MORE true is that for the Blessed Virgin Mary?)“Joseph abstained PERMANENTLY because she did carry Jesus.”
I see Jesus as so special, this profane or “common” usage of the Dedicated Ark is untenable.LUKE 1:42 (DRV) And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
The problem is not with how they wrote, but how it was translated into English. The Greek combination heos hou, which is translated as until, does not always mean a cessation of the main clause. In Mt. 18, we see this same heos hou combination translated as until, and yet not one Protestant scholar thinks there is not a continuation of what came before heos hou, after.That is a weird phrase. Did you ever hear some speak with a phrase like that?
I would agree that Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Joseph and Mary absolutely had marital relations after Jesus was born, but it does “imply” it. That is the common usage of the phrase. If he meant that Joseph never consummated the marriage he would have left the phrase out.: ‘But he did not consummate their marriage …]. And he gave him the name Jesus.’ Or like your example he could have written ‘But he did not consummate their marriage until he died. And he gave him the name Jesus.’
Why then does Plato use them to describe kindred, and fellow countrymen?The Greek text uses adelphos and adelphai. These words mean specifically brother and sister.
Why in the Old Testament is adelphos used in describing Lot’s relationship to Abram? Sure sounds like it is referring to a relative, and not a brother.They do not mean relative which could include sibling or cousin.
Wrong again. We actually have a non-biblical Greek correspondence where adelphai was used, and we know specifically it was the person’s cousin.It is possible that they were step-brothers who were perceived as half-brothers by those in the community who believed Joseph to be Jesus’ father.** But the Greek text could not be referring to cousins.**
The editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) write:
“Since all the authors represented in the New Testament appear to have been either Jews or Jewish proselytes before becoming Christians, it is natural that their use of Koine Greek was colored by their familiarity with the special characteristics of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint). Here and there the Gospels and the first half of Acts preserve in Greek certain turns of expression which reflect an underlying Aramaic idiom, which was the mother tongue of Jesus and his disciples” (“Introduction to the New Testament,” p. 1168).
David Hill writes:
“The vocabularies of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament have a great measure of similarity, and research into the syntax of the Greek of the Septuagint has revealed its remarkable likeness to that of the New Testament” (op. cit., p. 16).
Hill and others go so far as to posit the existence among Hellenistic Jews of a special vernacular Greek with a pronounced Semitic cast which found literary expression in the Septuagint and later on in the New Testament.
Hill continues: “The language of the New Testament…reveals in its syntax and–more important for our work–in its vocabulary [the italics are Hill’s] a strong Semitic cast, due in large measure to its indebtedness to the Jewish biblical Greek of the Septuagint” (ibid., p. 18).
In view of all this and of my own work with the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, I must disagree with these statements by Kilmon: (1) “Using Old Testament Hebrew to interpret New Testament Greek is textually absurd”; (2) “The Greek adelphos is not like the Hebrew ach, meaning ‘blood relation’”; (3) “The writer [Keating] also tries to confuse the Greek concept with the Hebrew concept by citing Septuagint sources”; (4) “The Hebrew idiom is absolutely not related to the New Testament Koine use of adelphos for ‘brother.’”
All of these statements ignore the historical reality of the Septuagint. It is in fact impossible to understand the Greek of the New Testament without reference to the Greek of the Septuagint; and it is likewise impossible to understand the peculiarities of Septuagint Greek without reference to the original Hebrew Old Testament.
The writers and very early readers of the New Testament were largely speakers of that special Jewish-flavored Hellenistic Greek of which I have written. Furthermore, being Jews, they were “Septuagint-conditioned.” They were used to the Septuagint usage of adelphos as the ordinary Greek rendering of the Hebrew ach in its many familial and extra-familial meanings–meanings much broader than uterine brother/sisterhood.
Sometimes it is used to refer to brothers and sisters in Christ. And Paul uses it to refer to fellow Jews. We sometimes refer to people who are close to us as a “brother” or “sister,” but not because they are a 1st cousin, or aunt, but because they are part of a close brotherhood/sisterhood bonded by some commonality in society. This appears to be a similar custom in this ancient Greek language.Why then does Plato use them to describe kindred, and fellow countrymen?
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew which does not have a word that means specifically brother or sister like the Greek and English language. The problem is when this word is translated into the Greek Septuagint or an English translation the Greek and English translators sometimes choose the term brother instead of nephew or relative.Why in the Old Testament is adelphos used in describing Lot’s relationship to Abram? Sure sounds like it is referring to a relative, and not a brother.
What is this source?Wrong again. We actually have a non-biblical Greek correspondence where adelphai was used, and we know specifically it was the person’s cousin.
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew and the NT was not. That is the big difference. Sure it may have affected them, but other places the term sungenis for “kin” is used to describe the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, as well as the term anepsios used for cousin (sometimes nephew). Why in all of the different Gospels did all writers use adelphos/adelphai and not sungenis or anepsios to describe these kindred of Jesus?I find it interesting that many scholars admit the influence the original Hebrew has on the Septuagint, but refuse to believe that the Septuagint influenced the authors of the NT.