C
Cathoholic
Guest
mcq72 . . . .
I am still waiting for your Early Church Father list.
.
I am still waiting for your Early Church Father list.
Last edited:
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
That is verse 5…i posted verse 8 I believe, and also mentioned following verse about “zeal” for His house
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
That is polyvalent too.
Now where is that list of yours?
Now where is that list of yours?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Not at my computer, but Clement, Barnabus, Didache, Ignatius, Martyr don’t help me or you if I recall, and Tertullian might help me but he turned heretic…would have to look at the article i posted site for…might be a miniscule name or two there…will have to check it tomorrow on my computer and not this phone
C
Cathoholic
Guest
mcq72 . . .
You implied there was early Church Fathers DENYING the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I know there are not any.
And you are right in that i will not accept Tertullian as Church Father.
Nor any other heretic.
But I didn’t ask what “helps” me.
You implied there was early Church Fathers DENYING the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I know there are not any.
And you are right in that i will not accept Tertullian as Church Father.
Nor any other heretic.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes vs 8,9 can be polyvalent and? That rules out a layer referring prophetically to Christ?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
mcq72 . . .
And it points to the Blessed Mother’s Universal Motherhood.
Mary is MY Mother too.
In THAT sense Mary’s motherhood IS extended.
But not in the sense of Mary having other biologic children.
No but it points to a different sense of his mother, daughter Zion.
And it points to the Blessed Mother’s Universal Motherhood.
Mary is MY Mother too.
In THAT sense Mary’s motherhood IS extended.
But not in the sense of Mary having other biologic children.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok…that is the answer I have heard most Catholics give for that verse, that the mother is Zion, or Israel is femenized. We do the same for the “women” in Revelations, that it is Israel, and not literally Mary.
Not sure the figurative spiritual motherhood of Mary fits the verse though, for Mary is considered mother of believers In Church Age, but said verse she is mother of non believers, even persecutors.
Not sure the figurative spiritual motherhood of Mary fits the verse though, for Mary is considered mother of believers In Church Age, but said verse she is mother of non believers, even persecutors.
Last edited:
While there’s great debate about this in Catholic circles, what’s clear is that Jesus did not have any blood-brothers. There’s strong scriptural basis for this in the Gospel of John. Besides, it’s Church dogma.I’ve heard the argument that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in scripture were not literal blood brothers, but were most likely akin to cousins and the like, because the language of the time didn’t have words for those other, familial terms.
How is it then that elsewhere in the Gospel, it describes Elizabeth as being Mary’s “cousin”?
Thanks in advance
But based on the context of text, some of the earliest traditions of the Church and some ancient texts written on the topic, the most likely case is that these brothers were the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. In other words, what we would call today step-brothers.
There’s a very strong ancient tradition that Joseph was a widower who had sons and daughters from his first marriage before he was betrothed to Mary. These sons of Joseph (from the previous marriage) are actually named in some of these ancient texts.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Look mcq72.
You told me with great certainty back in post 55 that the Church has no unanimous consent of the Fathers regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I knew that was wrong.
You denied CCC 500.
I knew that was wrong too.
You have been dancing around the issue of Church Fathers you allege to have denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
It is now past post 90, and I am still waiting for you to back up what you said in post 55.
Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin" Sacred Scripture
Your historically novel interpretation of Psalm 69 has not helped you.
Your sola Scriptura approach has left you sadly behind on this issue.
Perhaps tomorrow I will be more patient and go back to this.
But unless you have something substantial, maybe not too.
You told me with great certainty back in post 55 that the Church has no unanimous consent of the Fathers regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I knew that was wrong.
You denied CCC 500.
I knew that was wrong too.
You have been dancing around the issue of Church Fathers you allege to have denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
It is now past post 90, and I am still waiting for you to back up what you said in post 55.
I know there aren’t any and it seems to me you know there aren’t any Fathers that make such a denial either.
Your historically novel interpretation of Psalm 69 has not helped you.
Your sola Scriptura approach has left you sadly behind on this issue.
Perhaps tomorrow I will be more patient and go back to this.
But unless you have something substantial, maybe not too.
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Say what now?
P
pnewton
Guest
There is biblical evidence (not proof) for the perpetual virginity of Mary, and for the idea she had other children. We can argue all day about what evidence is stronger and neither side is compelling, from a view point of using Scripture only. There is only one reason to know that Mary had no other children, and that is from the authority of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of apostolic succession and Petrine primacy would have to be resolved in order to know that Mary was a virgin, for without the Church, we can not know with certainty. (and we cannot know with certainty what is “the Bible” for that matter). The Church that gave us the Bible, gave us this doctrine.
M
mcq72
Guest
I am not a total believer in “once saved always saved”, nor in “once right always right”.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
A few responses in answer to some of the responses made to my posts – has to be done in three parts. Apologies for the long posts.
Again, I stand corrected with respect to levirate marriages – I had forgotten that the woman in question must be childless; thus, this situation does not apply to Mary.
With respect to the audience to whom Mark was writing, I have to respectfully disagree that he is not writing for a Greek/Hellenized audience.
It is generally agreed upon that Mark’s gospel preceded the other three. He is writing for a Hellenized Gentile audience; not a Jewish one.
His audience, if not completely Greek, would have been, for the most part, completely Hellenized and very familiar with the Greek ‘mythic hero’ template he used to tell the Jesus story. A few quick observations evidence this: he writes in Greek (not Aramaic) using a template format that would be very familiar to his audience, he interprets many Aramaic phrases, and lastly, he explains many specifically Jewish customs for his readers.
None of this points to a Jewish audience, but rather a very Hellenized Gentile one not overly familiar with common Jewish customs.
With respect to the handing off of Mary’s care – first, it should be noted that this scene only occurs in the gospel of John; the most divergent of the four gospels; this dialogue does not appear anywhere in the three synoptic gospels.
As mentioned, the author of Mark (generally agreed to be the first written of the three synoptic gospels) makes use of the Greek ‘mythic hero archetype template’ in his telling of the Jesus story. In this template, once the ‘father’ figure’s role in the story has been competed (typically coinciding to when the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) becomes of age), he is simply dropped from the narrative never to be seen or heard from (and in some cases even talked about) again. This is done as a literary device, so that the main focus can now be placed on the ‘hero’ of the story. It does not mean the ‘father’ figure is dead, just that his ‘job’ in the story is done so he’s written out of the remaining narrative.
This concept of writing the parental figures out of a narrative so focus can be placed on the ‘hero/heroine’ of the story is also found in many European ‘hero/heroine’ folk tales. It’s more or less formulaic: in order for the hero to come into his own, the leading male figure (usually the father) usually meets some untimely demise (at least in the European formula). Same for the heroine and her mother, i.e. they need to be written out of the narrative.
Again, I stand corrected with respect to levirate marriages – I had forgotten that the woman in question must be childless; thus, this situation does not apply to Mary.
With respect to the audience to whom Mark was writing, I have to respectfully disagree that he is not writing for a Greek/Hellenized audience.
It is generally agreed upon that Mark’s gospel preceded the other three. He is writing for a Hellenized Gentile audience; not a Jewish one.
His audience, if not completely Greek, would have been, for the most part, completely Hellenized and very familiar with the Greek ‘mythic hero’ template he used to tell the Jesus story. A few quick observations evidence this: he writes in Greek (not Aramaic) using a template format that would be very familiar to his audience, he interprets many Aramaic phrases, and lastly, he explains many specifically Jewish customs for his readers.
None of this points to a Jewish audience, but rather a very Hellenized Gentile one not overly familiar with common Jewish customs.
With respect to the handing off of Mary’s care – first, it should be noted that this scene only occurs in the gospel of John; the most divergent of the four gospels; this dialogue does not appear anywhere in the three synoptic gospels.
As mentioned, the author of Mark (generally agreed to be the first written of the three synoptic gospels) makes use of the Greek ‘mythic hero archetype template’ in his telling of the Jesus story. In this template, once the ‘father’ figure’s role in the story has been competed (typically coinciding to when the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) becomes of age), he is simply dropped from the narrative never to be seen or heard from (and in some cases even talked about) again. This is done as a literary device, so that the main focus can now be placed on the ‘hero’ of the story. It does not mean the ‘father’ figure is dead, just that his ‘job’ in the story is done so he’s written out of the remaining narrative.
This concept of writing the parental figures out of a narrative so focus can be placed on the ‘hero/heroine’ of the story is also found in many European ‘hero/heroine’ folk tales. It’s more or less formulaic: in order for the hero to come into his own, the leading male figure (usually the father) usually meets some untimely demise (at least in the European formula). Same for the heroine and her mother, i.e. they need to be written out of the narrative.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Part two (of three) -
We have, of course, a missing period of time of about 20 years in the Jesus story (from roughly the age of 13-30-ish). When we see Jesus next, he is an adult embarking upon his mission. Jesus seems to now take on the role of ‘head of household’ with respect to Mary. The ‘hero’ has emerged as the main focal point. It’s interesting to note (and perhaps further evidences the author’s use of this template) that Mary and Jesus never once refer to Joseph after Jesus attains adulthood.
The point is, is that even though Joseph is never referred to again (except in a few indirect references, e.g. where Jesus is called the “son of the carpenter”, the “son of Joseph”), it does not mean that he is deceased.
Jesus does not hand Mary’s care off to a disciple in any of the synoptic gospels. This seems to further suggest that Joseph, though completely absent and written out of the narrative, is still living at the time of crucifixion. No need for her care to be entrusted to someone else.
Given that he would have been a few years older than Mary, and assuming he was about 20 when married to her, he would have been in his early 50’s (if not late 40’s) at the time of the crucifixion.
The inclusion of the dialogue in John’s gospel appears to be unique to its author. Three questions that are seemingly problematic immediately come up:
If Joseph is not deceased, why is this scene even included in the narrative?
If Jesus has brothers, why would he not entrust Mary’s care to the eldest as was customary?
To whom exactly did he entrust her care?
First, John’s gospel keeps with the other three in that once Jesus attains adulthood, Joseph is completely dropped out of the narrative. This provides an opportunity for the author to indirectly present Mary as an inferred widow and allows him a vehicle by which to include the ‘entrusting’ scene/dialogue. I think this solves the first question, i.e. the opportunity, by way of a literary device, to include this scene in his narrative.
We have, of course, a missing period of time of about 20 years in the Jesus story (from roughly the age of 13-30-ish). When we see Jesus next, he is an adult embarking upon his mission. Jesus seems to now take on the role of ‘head of household’ with respect to Mary. The ‘hero’ has emerged as the main focal point. It’s interesting to note (and perhaps further evidences the author’s use of this template) that Mary and Jesus never once refer to Joseph after Jesus attains adulthood.
The point is, is that even though Joseph is never referred to again (except in a few indirect references, e.g. where Jesus is called the “son of the carpenter”, the “son of Joseph”), it does not mean that he is deceased.
Jesus does not hand Mary’s care off to a disciple in any of the synoptic gospels. This seems to further suggest that Joseph, though completely absent and written out of the narrative, is still living at the time of crucifixion. No need for her care to be entrusted to someone else.
Given that he would have been a few years older than Mary, and assuming he was about 20 when married to her, he would have been in his early 50’s (if not late 40’s) at the time of the crucifixion.
The inclusion of the dialogue in John’s gospel appears to be unique to its author. Three questions that are seemingly problematic immediately come up:
If Joseph is not deceased, why is this scene even included in the narrative?
If Jesus has brothers, why would he not entrust Mary’s care to the eldest as was customary?
To whom exactly did he entrust her care?
First, John’s gospel keeps with the other three in that once Jesus attains adulthood, Joseph is completely dropped out of the narrative. This provides an opportunity for the author to indirectly present Mary as an inferred widow and allows him a vehicle by which to include the ‘entrusting’ scene/dialogue. I think this solves the first question, i.e. the opportunity, by way of a literary device, to include this scene in his narrative.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Part 3 of 3 -
The question is to whom did he entrust her care to? If indeed he had brothers, her care should have been entrusted to the eldest. From what we are told (and I don’t recall if it’s in Biblical sources or in non-canonical sources), the, I’ll say, “brethren” of Jesus did not believe in him or his mission (until, I think, after the resurrection).
While this may be true and perhaps may be argued as to why Mary’s care was entrusted by him to someone else, if we can assume for a moment that the author uses the same stylistic template as the synoptic gospels (which he seems to), it’s somewhat of a moot point – there was no need for him to entrust her care to a brother/cousin.
So why would the author include this dialogue if there’s really no reason or need to??
The disciple Jesus hands his mother over to is assumed to be John but may not have been. I’m not suggesting it was Lazarus, but, just as an example, he is also one “whom Jesus loved”. Valid arguments have also been made for his ‘brother’, James. The point is that it could have been almost anyone, not just John.
With that thought in mind, I suspect, that the inclusion of this dialogue of Jesus between his mother and an unnamed disciple, was done for its symbolic connotation/implications; i.e. this disciple was never meant to be anyone specific.
Could this unnamed disciple simply be a metaphor for humanity in general – Jesus symbolically handing Mary over to ‘us’ (humanity) as ‘our’ (humanity’s) spiritual mother? I think perhaps so.
The above still doesn’t really address the main question at hand, namely – did Jesus have siblings; “Brothers/Sisters” or “cousins”? I don’t think the question will ever be successfully answered by those that say ‘yes’ or those that say ‘no’. Arguments can be equally and validly made to support either view. I really think it all boils down to personal belief. If he didn’t, okay. If he did, so what? It certainly doesn’t diminish his message/mission. Whether he did or didn’t does however affect some churches’ teachings on Mary, but even at that, I don’t think it diminishes her role in the ‘Jesus story’ at all.
As a complete aside - while briefly on the subject of the template the author of Mark’s gospel used, a quick observation may be made: The fact that this template was used as a vehicle for telling the story of Jesus’s life and message, I don’t think diminishes the gospels in any way or somehow makes them seem less than what they are. In fact, the use of the vehicle of the ‘mythic hero archetype’ can be seen as not only a brilliant way to spread the message (because it would have been a style of epic story very familiar to the intended audience – they’d “get it”, so to speak), but may also speak to just how Hellenized culture (including Jewish culture) had become by the first century AD. One has to wonder if a more traditional Jewish epic story template had been used, if the spreading of the gospel’s message would have been as successful as it was. I don’t think it would have been.
The question is to whom did he entrust her care to? If indeed he had brothers, her care should have been entrusted to the eldest. From what we are told (and I don’t recall if it’s in Biblical sources or in non-canonical sources), the, I’ll say, “brethren” of Jesus did not believe in him or his mission (until, I think, after the resurrection).
While this may be true and perhaps may be argued as to why Mary’s care was entrusted by him to someone else, if we can assume for a moment that the author uses the same stylistic template as the synoptic gospels (which he seems to), it’s somewhat of a moot point – there was no need for him to entrust her care to a brother/cousin.
So why would the author include this dialogue if there’s really no reason or need to??
The disciple Jesus hands his mother over to is assumed to be John but may not have been. I’m not suggesting it was Lazarus, but, just as an example, he is also one “whom Jesus loved”. Valid arguments have also been made for his ‘brother’, James. The point is that it could have been almost anyone, not just John.
With that thought in mind, I suspect, that the inclusion of this dialogue of Jesus between his mother and an unnamed disciple, was done for its symbolic connotation/implications; i.e. this disciple was never meant to be anyone specific.
Could this unnamed disciple simply be a metaphor for humanity in general – Jesus symbolically handing Mary over to ‘us’ (humanity) as ‘our’ (humanity’s) spiritual mother? I think perhaps so.
The above still doesn’t really address the main question at hand, namely – did Jesus have siblings; “Brothers/Sisters” or “cousins”? I don’t think the question will ever be successfully answered by those that say ‘yes’ or those that say ‘no’. Arguments can be equally and validly made to support either view. I really think it all boils down to personal belief. If he didn’t, okay. If he did, so what? It certainly doesn’t diminish his message/mission. Whether he did or didn’t does however affect some churches’ teachings on Mary, but even at that, I don’t think it diminishes her role in the ‘Jesus story’ at all.
As a complete aside - while briefly on the subject of the template the author of Mark’s gospel used, a quick observation may be made: The fact that this template was used as a vehicle for telling the story of Jesus’s life and message, I don’t think diminishes the gospels in any way or somehow makes them seem less than what they are. In fact, the use of the vehicle of the ‘mythic hero archetype’ can be seen as not only a brilliant way to spread the message (because it would have been a style of epic story very familiar to the intended audience – they’d “get it”, so to speak), but may also speak to just how Hellenized culture (including Jewish culture) had become by the first century AD. One has to wonder if a more traditional Jewish epic story template had been used, if the spreading of the gospel’s message would have been as successful as it was. I don’t think it would have been.
M
mcq72
Guest
Thank you…in greek template i thought u said role of mother also diminishes?..i think focus is correctly on Jesus, and we are not told much more about Mary, except how she interacts with Jesus at certain points, like many others do.
You assert scripture is neutral on this topic of children, or that both sides have their points. Should we then not leave it alone, and is it not contrary then to raise so much focus on Mary? For we go from her being ever virgin to immaculate, to assumed, to being our mother, our queen, our co redemptrix. Seems like the opposite of her becoming less so that He can become more. She certainly becomes more, and in my opinion doesn’t make Christ anymore, for you can’t get any higher than being the highest already.
You assert scripture is neutral on this topic of children, or that both sides have their points. Should we then not leave it alone, and is it not contrary then to raise so much focus on Mary? For we go from her being ever virgin to immaculate, to assumed, to being our mother, our queen, our co redemptrix. Seems like the opposite of her becoming less so that He can become more. She certainly becomes more, and in my opinion doesn’t make Christ anymore, for you can’t get any higher than being the highest already.
M
mcq72
Guest
I thought Origen’s commentary on Matthew says Mary had other children, though in Luke comment says she was ever virgin
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Medawlinno . . .
No uterine siblings.
Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Perpetual.
The “brothers” routine is not persuasive.
It makes the Ark of the Covenant “MORE consecrated” (set aside for a Holy purpose) than the FULFILLED Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
It also diminishes the message by dismissing Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church.
It also diminishes the message by not getting to this point historically for about 1600 years (with the exception of a handful of heretics in the early Church).
The “Greek template” argument against the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also irrelevant.
The question HAS been answered . . . by the Church.
No uterine siblings.
Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Perpetual.
I have not seen one good argument made that suggests uterine siblings of Jesus. Not one.
The “brothers” routine is not persuasive.
It DOES diminish the message.
It makes the Ark of the Covenant “MORE consecrated” (set aside for a Holy purpose) than the FULFILLED Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
It also diminishes the message by dismissing Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church.
It also diminishes the message by not getting to this point historically for about 1600 years (with the exception of a handful of heretics in the early Church).
The “Greek template” argument against the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also irrelevant.
Last edited:
- Status