Question of Mary

Bella Vita said:

Because in scripture it tells us that Jesus's other siblings did not believe in his divinity. Two of his brothers would come to believe in him but it was after his death. Jesus left Mary in the hands of John because Joseph was more than likely already passed away and John was a believer of the faith.

Click to expand...

grandma dolittle said:

I am educated, but I do not claim to be a scholar. In fact, I distust so called scholars because they often push their opinions ahead of facts. I took several religious studies in college and I found my 'scholar" teachers to be in err at some points. As with my pastor... I take no man's word for somethims so vitally important to me.

While I do not claim to know it all; I have done a lot of reading and research into the history and times of Christ. I do know that children born to one parent are half-siblings... I have four.... but in that culture, they would be the same as full blood in regards to family matters.

Click to expand...

I like that! Before I enlisted, except for English Lit, I passed the Eighth Grade and did one semester and a half of the Ninth. Because, at that time, nobody got into Aviation without a High School Diploma and over 125 on the IQ Test. I scored 133 and my Recruiter had me schedualed for a GED Test between Basic Training and Aviation School.

I have posted on about fifteen Christian forums since '97 and a few have accused me of being a Bible Scholar... silly folks and one of the a Bible teaching prof. at a seminary. My Teacher is and hjas, from the day of my Conversion, been the Holy Spirit. Most of all, like you, I'm still learning and I know when I get Home, our LORD will jerk the knots out of my rope and strqighten me out.


God bless and I'll see ya when we go Home.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

The synoptic Gospels were authored in Aramaic and written in Aramaic and then Greek. Focusing on translated words in English like "until" to draw out possible implications isn't very scholarly.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

Really Aramaic... could you point me to those manusrpts the only ones I have seen are Greek.

Please consider the book "Who is my Mother" to understand the constuction used from the greek to english "until" I think you will find the scholarship there worth your wihile.


In Him,

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day,

Really Aramaic... could you point me to those manusrpts the only ones I have seen are Greek.

Click to expand...

I said authored, not written.

jakael02 said:

Hi all,

This is my take as a Catholic. I know Baptist do not accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as the Bible seems to suggest. But this is why i believe Jesus is the only son of Mary. Just want to share, not debate.

Neither the Gospel or early Church held to the idea that Jesus had other brothers or sisters. The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister."


Note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi).


Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Kindly - James

Click to expand...

Good day, James

Historiclly the distiction between cousin and brother is seen in the early church. There is a clear consturction in greek for cousin sungenis, and brother adelphos I am not sure where you get that information (has a wide meaning in the Bible). Do you have a Greek resource for this?

Any ways:

Hegesippus

Contrary to what Roman Catholics often suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

The New Testament evidence is against the perpetual virginity doctrine. Luke, for example, was familiar with Greek words he could have used to express the doctrine, and he used that terminology repeatedly, but not with regard to Mary and her children. Instead of using the Greek term for "only-born" (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38), he used the term "first-born" (Luke 2:7) to refer to Jesus. He uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters. He understood the difference between a "relative" and a "brother", even distinguishing between the two within a single sentence (Luke 21:16), but he repeatedly chooses the term "brother" to describe Jesus' siblings.

The church father Hegesippus apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20).
He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.

There is the historical view in the early chuch... and now Basil :



Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

In Him,

Bill

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

I said authored, not written.

Click to expand...

Hi SA,

I'm not really a part of this discussion, but...

If you will read your own post you will come to see that you said authored and written.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

BBAS 64 said:

Hegesippus


In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

Bill - good research. You bring up some valid points and good research. It is a shame that Hegesippus writings didn't survive except through later authors citing them. He would of been an awesome source. But we gotta deal with what we got. Sorta like us losing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Didache, etc.

I agree with the stuff you quoted. From what you stated, it would be a long theological tuffle to work this out. I'd like make a quick comment that "first-born" vs "only-born" has theological meaning and is why I believe that was used. Maybe I'm wrong though?

The early Church fathers not supporting it sorta makes sense. The perpetual virginity was one of those theologies worked-out and better understood as the Church became better organized and shared more works with one another. When it became devisive is when the Church decided to make a decision on the matter to avoid further division and keep the unity.

Again, thanks for the quote/research. I learned something new. Kindly - James

tigger45 said:

I'm guessing maybe the other siblings weren't there at that moment and in Jesus' human frailty looked for assurance at His moment of dispare.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not frail on the Cross. He was Almighty.

grandma dolittle said:

Jesus was almighty, but at the time on the cross, he was a frail human being suffering for us. He became the Almighty when he arose.

Click to expand...

No, God the Son died on the Cross. God the Son rose again.

grandma dolittle said:

James,
Josephus wote in The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 ...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.... Ananus, the son of Ananus and high priest had James and some companions accused of breaking the law and had them stoned.

Click to expand...

G-ma; Josephus is a very valuable source. Glad you sourced him out and your desire to find extrabiblical resources to support Scripture.

If I may, may I ask if you believe the term "brother" means half-brother (male sibling sharing one biological parent), step-brother (male sibling sharing one parent by marriage), or adoptive brother (male sibling adopted into the family)?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Baptist believe "brother/sister" used in scripture assumed to referral to full-sibling sharing both biological parents?

Kindly - James

jakael02 said:

Bill,

I understand Baptist feelings about us Catholics. It's no secret here in this forum.

As for Matthew 12:46-50. Please re-read my original post. You are reading the English, Matthew was originally written in Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek did not have a term for "cousin". The language for cousin would of been sloppy and the author of Sacred Scripture choose to use a vague term that is used to describe brother/sister but is also loosely used in other broader ways.

As for your Catholic friends. If they teach contrary to the Catholic Church, then they are in error and are not in a position to speak on behalf of the Church. They are non-Catholics who are calling themselves a different name.

Thanks for your post. Kindly - James

Click to expand...

Let me clarify something for you. It's not Baptists feelings about "catholics", that is no secret here. It's the false teachings of your church that Baptists, and others have a problem with....not the people. Mary is one of many.

I pray that one day, you will see truth.

Alonso_Castillo said:

Where in the Bible can we read that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were sons and daughters of the Always Vrigin Mary, mother of God? And please it needs to be Sola Scriptura, no interpretations.

Click to expand...

Matt. 13:53-56, Mark 6:1-6, and in Matt. 1:18-25 we see that Joseph did prolong relations until Jesus was born. Acts 1:12, 14 is also worth reading.

The Bible says Brothers and sisters of Jesus. Other churches say this is because they are step-brothers or sisters but as pointed out the Bible dose not say ever virgin. It says postponed relations till after birth.

The ever virgin story is a heresy that did not come out until 100 years after the gospels most notably in the Protoevangelium of James which still is apocryphal and Gnostic document and not considered scripture by any church even though many trumpet the heresies found in this document.

Alonso_Castillo said:

Where in the Bible can we read that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were sons and daughters of the Always Vrigin Mary, mother of God? And please it needs to be Sola Scriptura, no interpretations.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

Something tells me you have no Idea what Sola Scriptura is....

Here you go

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid. Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God. Hence, logically, I must do the following things:


In Him,

Bill