Believing in Him as the Son of God was not necessary for the care of His mother.
Any good Jewish son would have cared for his own mother, and there is no indictment in scripture of the basic character of James.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How old was Mary when she gave birth to Christ?
- Thread starter tonychanyt
- Start date
Any good Jewish son would have cared for his own mother, and there is no indictment in scripture of the basic character of James.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
- May 30, 2024
- 4,592
- 2,851
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
But Jesus had said that those who were not for Him were against Him. His mother was for Him, but His brothers (at that time) were not. As far as the bible is concerned, we are not told precisely why Jesus committed Mary to John's care.
Upvote
0
Jesus knew, however, that James very soon would be for Him.
We are not told why, but the bible already provides us with repeated evidence that it was a good Jewish son's duty to care for his own mother.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,034
- 22,738
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
It's interesting to note that Luther, Calvin, & Zwingli all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,034
- 22,738
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
James was not the biological brother of Jesus because Jesus is the only child.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,034
- 22,738
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Correct. There was no brothers or sons to care for her in her old age. Thus, Jesus made John take care of her.
Upvote
0
The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,522
- 1,418
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Problem with your assertion here is that Jesus's family thought he was crazy. (Mark 3:20-21) Thus Mary's other sons would not have respected his authority as the oldest male.
Jesus didn't leave Mary in the care of her other son's because at the point that he died; none of them were believers. Though James (and later Jude) did become believers; as Paul makes mention of James in Galatians 1:19: "... James, the Lord's brother."
We also have in Scripture:
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father,and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: (Jude 1:1)
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save inhis own country, and in his own house. (Matthew 13:55-57)
And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing himwere astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this whichis given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and amonghis own kin, and in his own house.
(Mark 6:2-4)
Clearly, Jesus had siblings!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They certainly would continue to respect His authority as the elder male, if he had been the elder male. Sanity did not diminish the family hierarchy (see: Nabal). It simply made living within it more difficult.
I'm not disputing that Jesus had no siblings; I'm suggesting that He was the only child of Mary, the second wife of Joseph who had older children from an earlier wife.
Upvote
0
The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,522
- 1,418
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
But your assertion here doesn't line up with what Scripture actually says.
Scripture clearly says there were other siblings in the family. (6 mentioned besides Jesus.) And since when Joseph married Mary; there was no mention that he had children from a previous marriage; (for if he'd had other children from a previous marriage; they would have also been taken to Egypt upon Joseph's 2nd marriage) So the only conclusion would be that Mary birthed these other children. Thus she was not a perpetual virgin either.
So apparently regardless of what Nabal said; that memo never got to Jesus's brothers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 7,644
- 2,993
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I hope that you don't hold it against everyone who disagrees with your "ASSUMPTION"
Upvote
0
The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,522
- 1,418
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Prove me wrong using Scripture. How else would you interpret the passages quoted, if not that Mary clearly had other children?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 7,644
- 2,993
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
You're trying to make an argument from silence. If the scripture is explicitly writing about Jesus, it may well exclude mentioning others except when they are directly interacting with Jesus.
And your conclusion is certainly not the "only" conclusion, inasmuch as I've pointed out a different conclusion. And it's not even only mine....
The standard position in Eastern Orthodoxy is that Mary is ever-virgin and bore only Jesus, Joseph was an older widower when he was betrothed to Mary, Joseph had children from a previous marriage, and these children are identified as Jesus’ “brothers” (Greek: adelphoi).
Several early Christian writers supported this interpretation, including Origen (3rd century) and Epiphanius of Salamis (4th century).
Upvote
0
The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,522
- 1,418
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
You are also trying to make an argument from silence; as Scripture never states Joseph had children from a prior marriage!
(And why the cited early Christian writers didn't regard these Scriptures; doesn't make your argument either. Only thing it proves is either their ignorance of Scripture, or their willful twisting of Scripture they knew was part of the canon.)
Where were these alleged other children of Joseph's when Christ was born? Were they all adults at the point Jesus was born? If they were adults at Christ's birth; then how do they end up as members of the household later on? And if they were children; would not Joseph have taken them to Egypt when they fled Herod?
Yet, as you point out; these siblings are recorded as interacting with Christ in the gospels. And obviously they were all adults there. Jesus was 6 months shy of 40 years old when he died. So.... the siblings are all what.... Mary's age or older? That makes even less sense; particularly considering two of the brothers are named well into the writhing of the epistles.
Thus it would be illogical to conclude they would have been decades older than Jesus. And what kind of provider would Joseph have been if he'd abandon his former children when they went to Egypt?
What makes the most sense in the entire context of the information we have from Scripture?
Upvote
0
The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,522
- 1,418
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
(Referencing previous Post #48)
Jude was believed to be written between 60 and 80 AD
(Which means Jude had to be younger than Jesus and thus could not have been an older child of Joseph's from a previous marriage.)
Galatians was believed to be written in 48 or 49 AD
Upvote
0
concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 7,644
- 2,993
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. - Galatians 1:19
See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, I resisted Peter, no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James. I saw him merely, I did not learn from him, he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not James merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does. But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him the Lord's brother, although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him.
- John Chrysostom
Hmm, who to believe, a Church Father from the 5th century of some self proclaimed biblical scholar on this forum.
Upvote
0
John G.
Active Member
- Feb 2, 2024
- 371
- 288
- 71
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Exactly, do you believe someone from the FIFTH century or the Gospel writers who were Jesus' contemporaries?
Jesus is always referred to as "the only begotten son (monogenes) of God" but the "firstborn son (prototokos)" of Mary.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 38,808
- 6,427
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The apostle John died when he was about 90 years old.
Upvote
0
concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 7,644
- 2,993
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I believe St John Chrysotom (Doctor of the Church) over any poster on this forum. His explanation is clear.
Based on Scripture, the Church has always taught Mary was ever Virgin. You are free to interpret Scripture in any matter you want. Just don't be surprised if most disagree with you.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
