Sifting through the "Mary's"-rebutting the "brothers of Jesus" fallacy

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It doesn’t make a whit of difference to me whether or not Mary had other children. She was, after all, married to Joseph, and married people normally enjoy sexual relations as a way of expressing their love and intimacy.

 The main argument in my mind that suggests that she did not have other children is that Christ on the cross placed her under the care of the disciple John. If he had had brothers that would have been unlikely, though still possible, as John may have been the only one there to assume that responsibility for a widowed mother.

  I do, however, think that Matt. 1:25 suggests that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. That doesn't trouble me for a moment. Why not?

The above that I posted from St. Jerome is why such ideas make a difference. The Holy Family is not a “normal family” most of all because of the God-made-man Jesus. To assume that a married couple must need to express their love in a conjugal act in order to express love and intimacy is begging the question.

The love and intimacy of heaven will be much, much greater than any love and intimacy that we will experience here on earth; are you going to posit that that kind of love and intimacy is impossible without the conjugal act?

 

[elvisman]

Clopas and Alphaeus are not the same person.
You know that I am not calling John a liar Elvisman.
Thank you

REALLY? Have you ever studied Greek?

**The other Mary - the "*Adelphe", or “kinswoman” of Jesus’ mother Mary - *was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus because Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person. The Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus OR Clopas.

It would be the same with the English name, Richard being rendered as “Dick”, “Rick”. Or the name Margaret being rendered as “Peggy”. Same goes for Charles being rendered as “Chuck” or “Hal”.

Unless you study your Greek and can debunk this - CASE CLOSED.

 

[guanophore]

Alex, I remain puzzled why the concept of Mary having other children takes anything away from her role as “Mother” of Jesus.

Mary consecrated herself compeletly to God. No consecrated vessel is removed from holy service, and placed back into daily use. This is considered a profanation. To grasp this concept, one must read how scandalized Israel was when the invaders took the sacred vessels from the Temple and used them for parties.

Since Catholics see it as an insult, I guess it stems from a historical prejudice against women - this is the only paradigm where it fills the role of evil slander.

On the contrary, the Catholic concept of Mary is that she is the highest of all God’s creations, the New Eve. She is the crowning perfection of what it means to be Woman.

What is an insult for us is throwing out part of the Gospel we have received from the Apostles. We are not permitted to excise portions of it, and decide on our own authority that any part of it is not relevant to salvation. We were committed ONE FAITH, which is seamless, and was ONCE FOR ALL deposited to the Church. To accept innovations to that faith amounts to “another gospel”, which if we embrace, we will be accursed.

When one decides to start pulling the threads out of the one seamless garment of our faith, there is no limit to what might get pulled out. We can see this clearly, as all the Reformers continued to embrace the Apostolic Teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. As the children of the Reformers continued to pick and choose which parts of the faith they decided are not “relevant” to salvation, more and more of that Gospel passed on through the paradosis has been lost to them.

I see the role of mother as something holy and God given that does not demean or reduce the Grace of the mother.

Yes, this is the Catholic Teaching also.

Mary had a special experience of Motherhood that no human before or after her will ever have. Since she is the Ark of the Covenant, she is consecrated to the bearing of Christ. He is the Staff, the Bread, and the HOly Word that was carried in her womb.

One must also look at how the Ark of the Covenant was treated in Israel to understand why we esteem Mary as consecrated.

 

[guanophore]

The question of whether Jesus had full-blood siblings cannot be resolved from the text of the Gospels. If it could, we would not have this dispute with our Protestant brothers. If anything, the texts seem to lean their way, which is why the dispute exists. One can either accept the tradition as passed down by the Church or not. Catholics do, and continued quibbling over the texts seems unlikely to change the minds of those who do not.

I agree. I think this is also why a discussion about the Marian doctrines ALWAYS result in a dispute over Sacred Tradtiion and the Authority of the Church.

 

[elvisman]

The question of whether Jesus had full-blood siblings cannot be resolved from the text of the Gospels. If it could, we would not have this dispute with our Protestant brothers. If anything, the texts seem to lean their way, which is why the dispute exists. One can either accept the tradition as passed down by the Church or not. Catholics do, and continued quibbling over the texts seems unlikely to change the minds of those who do not.

I agree with you that this cant be resolved with the biblical texts that we have. However, I disagree with yout that they lean the way of the Protestant understanding. I believe just the opposite is true.

**It can be proven - and HAS been proven ad nauseam - that all of the so-called “siblings” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not uterine siblings, but *other *relations, Church traditions notwithstanding. **

Because the Scriptures are silent as to whether or not Mary had other children - the onus is on Protestants and other nay-sayers to prove it - not the other way around.

 

[Cranmer2010]

**I agree **with you that this cant be resolved with the biblical texts that we have. However, I disagree with yout that they lean the way of the Protestant understanding. I believe just the opposite is true.

It can be proven - and HAS been proven ad nauseam - that all of the so-called “siblings” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not uterine siblings, but *other *relations, Church traditions notwithstanding.

**Because the Scriptures are silent **as to whether or not Mary had other children - the onus is on Protestants and other nay-sayers to prove it - not the other way around.

Not so at all. Scripture mentions Jesus’ siblings on many occasions and even states that Mary and Joseph did not have relations UNTIL Jesus was born. There is nothing included in Scripture to give light to Joseph and Mary not having a normal marriage and Jesus not living within a normal family. You can’t prove that Jesus did not have sibiligs and Mary did not have a normal sexual marriage to Joseph using the context of Scripture.

 

[zdon011]

In the early Church, the apocryphal Protevangelium of James (2nd century) and Origen (3rd century) both attest to widespread belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. We have no trace of any difference of opinion till c. 383, when Helvidius suggested that Mary bore other children after Jesus. He was immediately refuted and sternly rebuked by Jerome.
Early Protestants, such as Luther and Zwingli, and evangelicals like John Wesley believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Scripture…states that Mary and Joseph did not have relations UNTIL Jesus was born.

Yes, in Matthew 1:25.
However, the Greek ἕως (unlike the English ‘until’) in that verse carries no implication that they did have relations afterwards. This is affirmed by Protestant scholars: see commentaries in bible.cc/matthew/1-25.htm.
The same applies to ‘until’ or ‘till’ in I Samuel 15:35, II Samuel 6:23, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 42:4, and Matthew 12:20.

There is nothing included in Scripture to give light to Joseph and Mary not having a normal marriage and Jesus not living within a normal family. You can’t prove that Jesus did not have siblings and Mary did not have a normal sexual marriage to Joseph using the context of Scripture.

If Mary had any biological children, why would Jesus entrust her to John’s care? (John 19:26-7) In Semitic culture, it was expected that elderly parents would be looked after by their children. Joseph is out of the picture early in the Gospel, and it is strongly implied that he had died, so Mary would already be living with her children. Several times, she is mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ brothers (e.g. ‘Your mother and brothers are looking for you’). Why would Jesus take her out of his brother’s/sister’s house and commit her to the care of a non-relative? After all, he appeared to James soon after his Resurrection (I Corinthians 15:7), and his brothers became leaders in the Church early on.

Catholics have traditionally believed that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were actually cousins. The Aramaic/Hebrew word for ‘brother’ is imprecise. In the Greek Bible (Septuagint), the term adelphos (brother) is also used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, or Jacob and Laban; and it is used for ‘cousin’ in I Chronicles 23:22.

Matthew 13:55-6 and Mark 6:3 list Jesus’ ‘siblings’ as James, Joses, Jude, and unnamed sisters. In Mark 15:40, James and Joses are identified as the sons of ‘the other Mary’, the Virgin’s sister, and wife of Clopas (John 19:25). It is interesting that James is usually mentioned as ‘the Lord’s brother’ (e.g. by Paul in Galatians 1:19), and yet Jude, in the epistle he is traditionally credited with, calls himself ‘brother of James’ but not of Jesus (Jude 1).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Not so at all. Scripture mentions Jesus’ siblings on many occasions and even states that Mary and Joseph did not have relations UNTIL Jesus was born. There is nothing included in Scripture to give light to Joseph and Mary not having a normal marriage and Jesus not living within a normal family. You can’t prove that Jesus did not have sibiligs and Mary did not have a normal sexual marriage to Joseph using the context of Scripture.

And there is nothing in scripture that says that they did have what you call “normal marriage”.

I posted earlier St. Jerome’s rebuttal to the assumption that “till” automatically means they “did”.

I will not repost it his words but I suggest Cranmer that you read it:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7025883&postcount=36
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7025886&postcount=37
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7025890&postcount=38
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7025896&postcount=39

I demonstrated in my OP that there were at least three different Mary’s that followed Jesus and I demonstrated that the Mary who was the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is not the same woman as Mary the mother of Jesus.

Unless you are saying that we must accept in every instance in the Bible that mentions “brother”, “brothers”, “brethern” must always imply the status of direct siblings. How do you explain the “500 brethren” in 1 Cor 15:6? Are they all Jesus’ “brothers” too?

 

[lax16]

In the early Church, the apocryphal Protevangelium of James (2nd century) and Origen (3rd century) both attest to widespread belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. We have no trace of any difference of opinion till c. 383, when Helvidius suggested that Mary bore other children after Jesus. He was immediately refuted and sternly rebuked by Jerome.
Early Protestants, such as Luther and Zwingli, and evangelicals like John Wesley believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Yes, in Matthew 1:25.
However, the Greek ἕως (unlike the English ‘until’) in that verse carries no implication that they did have relations afterwards. This is affirmed by Protestant scholars: see commentaries in bible.cc/matthew/1-25.htm.
The same applies to ‘until’ or ‘till’ in I Samuel 15:35, II Samuel 6:23, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 42:4, and Matthew 12:20.

If Mary had any biological children, why would Jesus entrust her to John’s care? (John 19:26-7) In Semitic culture, it was expected that elderly parents would be looked after by their children. Joseph is out of the picture early in the Gospel, and it is strongly implied that he had died, so Mary would already be living with her children. Several times, she is mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ brothers (e.g. ‘Your mother and brothers are looking for you’). Why would Jesus take her out of his brother’s/sister’s house and commit her to the care of a non-relative? After all, he appeared to James soon after his Resurrection (I Corinthians 15:7), and his brothers became leaders in the Church early on.

Catholics have traditionally believed that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were actually cousins. The Aramaic/Hebrew word for ‘brother’ is imprecise. In the Greek Bible (Septuagint), the term adelphos (brother) is also used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, or Jacob and Laban; and it is used for ‘cousin’ in I Chronicles 23:22.

Matthew 13:55-6 and Mark 6:3 list Jesus’ ‘siblings’ as James, Joses, Jude, and unnamed sisters. In Mark 15:40, James and Joses are identified as the sons of ‘the other Mary’, the Virgin’s sister, and wife of Clopas (John 19:25). It is interesting that James is usually mentioned as ‘the Lord’s brother’ (e.g. by Paul in Galatians 1:19), and yet Jude, in the epistle he is traditionally credited with, calls himself ‘brother of James’ but not of Jesus (Jude 1).

 

[Cranmer2010]

And there is nothing in scripture that says that they did have what you call “normal marriage”.

That’s like saying that there isn’t anything on the Weather Channel to implicate the sky being blue.

Why would Scripture be charged with showing that Joseph and Mary had a completely normal marriage? I don’t understand your fashion of thinking on this.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

That’s like saying that there isn’t anything on the Weather Channel to implicate the sky being blue.

 

[elvisman]

Cranmer2010;7033069:

If by “normal marriage” you mean “they obviously had relations after Jesus’ birth” you’re imposing your opinion of what your believe constitutes a “normal marriage” onto the text.

Their marriage was far from what moderns would call “normal” just for the fact that she became pregnant while still a virgin. She gave birth to the Son of God; and they knew this!

Can you honestly tell me that you would be totally indifferent if your wife gave birth to child that wasn’t yours? That you would just continue on with “normal” relations?

How much more so if she gave birth to the Son of God, and God had personally revealed this to you?

Any assertion that they had sex after jesus’ birth is based on circular logic-it requires that the assumption be a premise.

**I was gone yesterday and did not have an opportunity to repond to Cranmer2010’s **posts - but you and zdon011 have been doing such a *stellar *job I didn’t feell the need to.

His use of the "until" argument to presuppose a “normal” marriage has been debunked to death using the passages you and others have supplied. I will just add my 2 cents. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word,* “until”:
2 Samuel 6:23* tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death**.
Are we to assume that Michal had children* after* she died*?*

---

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

---

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century* Engli*sh to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

 

[Cranmer2010]

The GreyPilgrim;7033200:

**I was gone yesterday and did not have an opportunity to repond to Cranmer2010’s **

posts - but you and zdon011 have been doing such a *stellar *job I didn’t feell the need to.

His use of the "until" argument to presuppose a “normal” marriage has been debunked to death using the passages you and others have supplied. I will just add my 2 cents. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word,* “until”:
2 Samuel 6:23* tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death**.
Are we to assume that Michal had children* after* she died*?*

---

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

---

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century* Engli*sh to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Attempting to rebutt to death one word of Scripture doesn’t make your argument Elvis. There are several Scriptures that tell us that your point of view here doesn’t really fit. Show me using Scripture where Joseph and Mary never had normal marital sex. Show me using Scripture that Jesus never had blood siblings. The whole point here is that you can’t make this argument using the Bible Elvisman. I’m respectfully just saying that. The whole premise of Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus never having any blood siblings has to come from somewhere other than the inherant word or God.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer2010;7033069:

If by “normal marriage” you mean “they obviously had relations after Jesus’ birth” you’re imposing your opinion of what your believe constitutes a “normal marriage” onto the text.

Concemating the marriage and having normal marital sex is exactly what a normal marriage is.

Their marriage was far from what moderns would call “normal” just for the fact that she became pregnant while still a virgin. She gave birth to the Son of God; and they knew this!

Of course, but how does that constitute that Joseph never had sex with her. You are making a leap without being able to use Scripture to do it.

Can you honestly tell me that you would be totally indifferent if your wife gave birth to child that wasn’t yours? That you would just continue on with “normal” relations?

In this particular instance, I would be completely honored and blessed to be able to according to the institution of marriage in which God set up.

How much more so if she gave birth to the Son of God, and God had personally revealed this to you?

Any assertion that they had sex after jesus’ birth is based on circular logic-it requires that the assumption be a premise.

It’s based upon the fact that Scripture never gave any inkling to the idea that they didn’t have what is common knowledge to be a normal marriage period. You have no proof to the contrary.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;7033439:

Attempting to rebutt to death one word of Scripture doesn’t make your argument Elvis. There are several Scriptures that tell us that your point of view here doesn’t really fit. Show me using Scripture where Joseph and Mary never had normal marital sex. Show me using Scripture that Jesus never had blood siblings. The whole point here is that you can’t make this argument using the Bible Elvisman. I’m respectfully just saying that. The whole premise of Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus never having any blood siblings has to come from somewhere other than the inherant word or God.

Apparently you’re not familiar with the rules of debating. In a debate, one is never called upon to prove a negative. The onus is upon the one trying to prove a positive - which, in this case is YOU.

**You’re trying to prove that Mary had other **children based on your understanding of marriage. The problem is that with your position - your throw out every OT type relating to Mary (2 Sam. 6:9, 2 Sam. 6:14, 2 Sam. 6:11, Ezekiel 44:2) along with every historical tradition that she in fact *remained *a virgin all her life.

Your argument is glaringly weak, ghiven the fact thate you are demanding that I attempt to prove a negative - which is not possible in any argument.

The simple fact is that you cannot prove with Scripture that:
1. Mary had other children
2. Jesus had uterine siblings

The argument that neither is true can be shown - and HAS been shown on this thread many times - from Scripture. You have shown nothing but opinion.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer2010;7033651:

Apparently you’re not

familiar with the rules of debating. In a debate, one is never called upon to prove a negative. The onus is upon the one trying to prove a positive - which, in this case is YOU.

**You’re trying to prove that Mary had other **children based on your understanding of marriage. The problem is that with your position - your throw out every OT type relating to Mary (2 Sam. 6:9, 2 Sam. 6:14, 2 Sam. 6:11, Ezekiel 44:2) along with every historical tradition that she in fact *remained *a virgin all her life.

Your argument is glaringly weak, ghiven the fact thate you are demanding that I attempt to prove a negative - which is not possible in any argument.

The simple fact is that you cannot prove with Scripture that:
1. Mary had other children
2. Jesus had uterine siblings

The argument that neither is true can be shown - and HAS been shown on this thread many times - from Scripture. You have shown nothing but opinion.

No no no Elvis. The dogma is the positive in this case and it is up to YOU to prove it. You however have not and cannot.

 

[elvisman]

No no no Elvis. The dogma is the positive in this case and it is up to YOU to prove it. You however have not and cannot.

Ummmm . . .gosh - I really hate to point your own words out to you to prove you wrong, but here goes. Your own words:

**"Show me using Scripture where Joseph and Mary never had normal marital sex.
Show me using Scripture that Jesus never had blood siblings. The whole point here is that you can’t make this argument using the Bible Elvisman."

So many flaws - where to begin?
First of all - you are challenging me to prove 2 negatives - which is not up to me - it’s up to you.

Secondly - you are using the extremely flawed, 500-year-old doctrine of Sola Scriptura to challenge Mary’s perpetual virginity. Sola Scriptura is not only NOT taught in Scripture - it is rejected (2 Thess. 2:15), so your house of cards continues to collapse.

**Finally - you still have yet to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ll even make it easier on you - I won’t restrict you to the Bible like you are trying to do to me. You can use Scripture and the 2000 years of Tradition handed down by the Apostles and Church Fathers, including all of the Councils.

If we are going strictly from Scripture - the body of evidence clearly supports the Catholic position that Mary had no other children because you cannot name ONE of them. Don’t you think that the NT writers would have at least named ONE of the uterine siblings of God himself??

I eagerly await your proof . . .

 

[qui_est_ce]

Apparently you’re not familiar with the rules of debating. In a debate, one is never called upon to prove a negative. The onus is upon the one trying to prove a positive - which, in this case is YOU.

**You’re trying to prove that Mary had other **children based on your understanding of marriage. The problem is that with your position - your throw out every OT type relating to Mary (2 Sam. 6:9, 2 Sam. 6:14, 2 Sam. 6:11, Ezekiel 44:2) along with every historical tradition that she in fact *remained *a virgin all her life.

Your argument is glaringly weak, ghiven the fact thate you are demanding that I attempt to prove a negative - which is not possible in any argument.

The simple fact is that you cannot prove with Scripture that:
1. Mary had other children
2. Jesus had uterine siblings

The argument that neither is true can be shown - and HAS been shown on this thread many times - from Scripture. You have shown nothing but opinion.

**I was gone yesterday and did not have an opportunity to repond to Cranmer2010’s **posts - but you and zdon011 have been doing such a *stellar *job I didn’t feell the need to.

His use of the "until" argument to presuppose a “normal” marriage has been debunked to death using the passages you and others have supplied. I will just add my 2 cents. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word,* “until”:
2 Samuel 6:23* tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death**.
Are we to assume that Michal had children* after* she died*?*

---

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

---

Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century* Engli*sh to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Any assertion that they had sex after jesus’ birth is based on circular logic-it requires that the assumption be a premise.

No no no Elvis. The dogma is the positive in this case and it is up to YOU to prove it. You however have not and cannot.

Well, Elvis,

It’s hard to have a logical discussion with a person who depends on his own assumptions for Truth, rather than the many historical and Biblical proofs provided here.

Hopefully the new Protestants who seem to have swarmed here the last few days will actually read what you and others have written.

We have to praise God that they are here seeking Truth.

 

[elvisman]

Well, Elvis,

It’s hard to have a logical discussion with a person who depends on his own assumptions for Truth, rather than the many historical and Biblical proofs provided here.

Hopefully the new Protestants who seem to have swarmed here the last few days will actually read what you and others have written.

We have to praise God that they are here seeking Truth.

Amen!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Ummmm . . .gosh - I really hate to point your own words out to you to prove you wrong, but here goes. Your own words

***"***Show me using Scripture where Joseph and Mary never had normal marital sex.
Show me using Scripture that Jesus never had blood siblings. The whole point here is that you can’t make this argument using the Bible Elvisman."

**So many flaws **- where to begin?
First of all - you are challenging me to prove 2 negatives - which is not up to me - it’s up to you.

Secondly - you are using the extremely flawed, 500-year-old doctrine of Sola Scriptura to challenge Mary’s perpetual virginity. Sola Scriptura is not only NOT taught in Scripture - it is rejected (2 Thess. 2:15), so your house of cards continues to collapse.

**Finally - you *still ***have yet to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ll even make it easier on you - I won’t restrict you to the Bible like you are trying to do to me. You can use Scripture and the 2000 years of Tradition handed down by the Apostles and Church Fathers, including all of the Councils.

If we are going strictly from Scripture - the body of evidence clearly supports the Catholic position that Mary had no other children because you cannot name ONE of them. Don’t you think that the NT writers would have at least named ONE of the uterine siblings of God himself??

I eagerly await your proof . . .

Well, Cranmer got himself suspended, so all he can do is read for now.

Let’s not forget that even the author of Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther himself, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. He even gave credit to the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible! Unfortunately, as ML began making himself the authority, he started removing books that conflicted with his new invention of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides. Taking James out was the last straw, though (no pun intended) and he had to put it back.