How many other children did Mary have? (2)

[HeavensWorship]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "How many other children did Mary have?"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Subscribing...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing...

Me too!


..

 

[HeavensWorship]

OK. I haven't been on this forum for a while. Lots of things happening. My mother battling cancer... busy caring for a 7 member family (wife, I, 5 children)... etc...etc..

In continuing with part 1 of this thread, I want to ask Thekla one question:

Suppose that Mary indeed had other children. If Jesus indeed had brothers (half-brothers) through Mary...

What Greek word would the writers of the NT use for "brothers"?

No dancing around definitions.
One word answer is requested. No more!

No ifs, ands, or buts.
One word answer is requested. No more!

 

[Thekla]

OK. I haven't been on this forum for a while. Lots of things happening. My mother battling cancer... busy caring for a 7 member family (wife, I, 5 children)... etc...etc..

In continuing with part 1 of this thread, I want to ask Thekla one question:

Suppose that Mary indeed had other children. If Jesus indeed had brothers (half-brothers) through Mary...

What Greek word would the writers of the NT use for "brothers"?

No dancing around definitions.
One word answer is requested. No more!

No ifs, ands, or buts.
One word answer is requested. No more!

How is your mother doing ?
God with all of you +

The same term - does that qualify as "one word" ?

Recall - Herod and Philip, referred to as adelphos, were biologically step-brothers.

If you look back at Leviticus, adelphos is the term even where there is no biological relationship.

As before from what I have found so far, the term always indicates a relationship through a common male (unless there is further description).
If you know of instances where it doesn't, without description, I'd be truly pleased to know about them.

The potentially most definitive way to know is through the use of the term "born of" - but with caveats: Michal gave birth to no children, but was said to have born children (they were her sister's children - see 2 Samuel).

Me, I'm fine to leave it at adelphos - and I know what that means.

 

[sonshine234]

How many other children? none

 

[HeavensWorship]

How is your mother doing ?
God with all of you +

The same term - does that qualify as "one word" ?

Recall - Herod and Philip, referred to as adelphos, were biologically step-brothers.

If you look back at Leviticus, adelphos is the term even where there is no biological relationship.

As before from what I have found so far, the term always indicates a relationship through a common male (unless there is further description).
If you know of instances where it doesn't, without description, I'd be truly pleased to know about them.

The potentially most definitive way to know is through the use of the term "born of" - but with caveats: Michal gave birth to no children, but was said to have born children (they were her sister's children - see 2 Samuel).

Me, I'm fine to leave it at adelphos - and I know what that means.

Ok... that wasn't one word answer. That was the same dancing around the definition... extensive list of ifs, ands, and buts.... that you do all along.

obviously, you are blowing a lot of smoke over the clear facts.

After all the smoke is gone, we are left with the answer. The most probably word that the NT writers would use to mean "brothers", if Mary indeed had other biological children is.... adelphos!

I said it before, I don't need to read a paragraph (or 10) about how adelphos cannot mean biological brothers. It is just non-sense to me considering the umpteen points that are brought to the table... and there is much more.

For example:
I have 5 children ages 8,4,3,2, and 11 months. Caring for this many children is a lot of work. My wife and I have to referee, judge disputes, discipline, feed, clean, watch, give them the attention they all demand, and try to get a little rest in the meanwhile. Watching that many children is a lot of work.
You would be surprised how much help we need! We don't get enough help.
I understand how easy it is to lose track of one (or even two) of them because the baby is crying, the 2 year old is demanding attention, the 3 year old is getting himself into endless trouble.... and round and round we go.
Oh, I did I say looking after that many little ones is a lot of work?
It is a lot of work.
Even with [only] five children there have been times when for periods of time it dawns on us, where is the oldest? Then we clue in! Wow, we haven't seen him for a while!
It is very easy to lose track when there are so many children. It is scary, and believe me, we had a few scares!

I can relate very well to Mary when she (and her whole family) went a days journey from Jerusalem. Jesus, being 12 years old... and Mary and Joseph with no birth control must have had a lot! Probably much much more than 5. I can understand how easy it would be to have lost the oldest boy.

Trust me, if you had a lot of children year after year you would understand.

But suppose the argument that Mary had only one child was true. It takes a lot of imagination, and a lot of explanation to explain how Mary's "only" boy was lost for a whole day without her noticing!

Yeah, yeah, I know the argument would be "well, Mary was just so busy with everyone else"... yada, yada....
All I got to say is ask someone who has one very special child how easy it is to lose that child for several hours without missing him.
On the other hand, ask someone with 10 children how easy it is to lose one for several hours without missing him.

Common sense. The one with many children is much more likely to be distracted with the needs of all the other little ones (and possibly a baby).

But what, or who would distract a mother from watching her oldest as much as a baby, a 1 year old, a 2 year old, a 4 year old, a 5 year old, a 6 year old, a 7 year old, a 8 year old, a 10 year old, and an 11 year old?

Take it from me... having lots of children, Mary would have been easily distracted and lose track of Jesus.

Would Mary be so distracted by her uncle? her cousin? her friend? that she forgets about her "only" child?

To anyone who argues such I say - Nonsense. Worse than nonsense... hogwash!

 

[Thekla]

Ok... that wasn't one word answer. That was the same dancing around the definition... extensive list of ifs, ands, and buts.... that you do all along.

obviously, you are blowing a lot of smoke over the clear facts.

The term is not as narrow as you seem to want it to be; to give an accurate answer requires more than confirming one aspect of the term.

After all the smoke is gone, we are left with the answer. The most probably word that the NT writers would use to mean "brothers", if Mary indeed had other biological children is.... adelphos!

Yes, as I said - yet without further description, one cannot maintain accuracy and come to the conclusion that they are biological children of Mary.

I said it before, I don't need to read a paragraph (or 10) about how adelphos cannot mean biological brothers. It is just non-sense to me considering the umpteen points that are brought to the table... and there is much more.

But I never said it couldn't. What I did do was to explain aspects of the cultural understanding -- we do not in this era and area have the same mindset as the Jews of the 1st c. After all, how many of our texts refer to adopted children as "born of" ? The Scriptures do - and the Babylonian Talmud (quoted in another thread here) uses not only Michal but other examples to make the same point.

Semitic and Koine terminology for family relationships seems 'slippery' to us, as it is not like our own terminology.

Let the Scriptures speak for themselves - and that includes understanding what they do say. As I noted before, otherwise we are prone to misunderstanding -- erroneously thinking, for example, that "heart" in the Scriptures means emotions or compassion.

For example:
I have 5 children ages 8,4,3,2, and 11 months. Caring for this many children is a lot of work. My wife and I have to referee, judge disputes, discipline, feed, clean, watch, give them the attention they all demand, and try to get a little rest in the meanwhile. Watching that many children is a lot of work.
You would be surprised how much help we need! We don't get enough help.
I understand how easy it is to lose track of one (or even two) of them because the baby is crying, the 2 year old is demanding attention, the 3 year old is getting himself into endless trouble.... and round and round we go.
Oh, I did I say looking after that many little ones is a lot of work?
It is a lot of work.

Congratulations
We are blessed with six children (though our youngest is now 11).

Even with [only] five children there have been times when for periods of time it dawns on us, where is the oldest? Then we clue in! Wow, we haven't seen him for a while!
It is very easy to lose track when there are so many children. It is scary, and believe me, we had a few scares!

I've not had the experience of losing track of them on outings, though one son was given to wandering off after what interested him - a bit challenging and even frightening at times, certainly ! Mostly me hauling some, pushing another, herding the rest, and chasing the wanderer

I can relate very well to Mary when she (and her whole family) went a days journey from Jerusalem. Jesus, being 12 years old... and Mary and Joseph with no birth control must have had a lot! Probably much much more than 5. I can understand how easy it would be to have lost the oldest boy.

Birth spacing with full breastfeeding (typical until recently) tends to leave about 2 1/2 years between births (which is the case with us - with one exception of of 3 1/2 years spacing). Not always of course, but typically.

Trust me, if you had a lot of children year after year you would understand.

I do

In the case of Luke's account, they didn't lose track of Jesus per se, but assumed He was with extended family/kin. Which I can imagine happening in large family/friend outings.

But suppose the argument that Mary had only one child was true. It takes a lot of imagination, and a lot of explanation to explain how Mary's "only" boy was lost for a whole day without her noticing!

Our children don't have many cousins - but the family get-togethers when I was younger were a mess 12 adults (including grandparents), 18 grandchildren, always some second cousins, sometimes a sibling or more of a grandparent, cousins removed by various degrees, family friends as well.

The adults tended to talk among themselves, occasionally noticing something going on with the various groups of children so 'herding' or correcting and then back to adult interaction ...

Yeah, yeah, I know the argument would be "well, Mary was just so busy with everyone else"... yada, yada....
All I got to say is ask someone who has one very special child how easy it is to lose that child for several hours without missing him.
On the other hand, ask someone with 10 children how easy it is to lose one for several hours without missing him.

In a situation with numerous adults and many children (when many or all adults have children), it doesn't seem odd to me. When we do get together with extended family, the children tend to want to travel with other family members - a favorite uncle, or in the group with a cousin. I can imagine thinking someone else has a child - who, it ends up, doesn't.

Common sense. The one with many children is much more likely to be distracted with the needs of all the other little ones (and possibly a baby).

Sure, it takes a lot of energy to be vigilant.

But what, or who would distract a mother from watching her oldest as much as a baby, a 1 year old, a 2 year old, a 4 year old, a 5 year old, a 6 year old, a 7 year old, a 8 year old, a 10 year old, and an 11 year old?

Iirc, the adelphoi (pl) numbered six, leaving seven total.
Of course, no mention is made by Luke of any other children, or infants, at all. He just says that Mary and Joseph looked for Jesus among their relatives and acquaintances. It took them an entire day to notice that He was missing, I think it rather more likely that it was assumed he was with other family members or friends when they left. (Even with young children, with two parents monitoring, it would be most unusual that it took an entire day to notice.) And in fact Luke states that they "supposed him to have been in the company".

Take it from me... having lots of children, Mary would have been easily distracted and lose track of Jesus.

I don't agree - not with two parents, and not for an entire day.

Would Mary be so distracted by her uncle? her cousin? her friend? that she forgets about her "only" child?

I think it's most unlikely that any parent, no matter how distracted, would forget about their child for an entire day. If, however, the parent thought their child was with other family members or friends, that would would be more likely.

To anyone who argues such I say - Nonsense. Worse than nonsense... hogwash!

Have you lost track of any of your children for an entire day ?

 

[Standing Up]

Ok... that wasn't one word answer. That was the same dancing around the definition... extensive list of ifs, ands, and buts.... that you do all along.

obviously, you are blowing a lot of smoke over the clear facts.

After all the smoke is gone, we are left with the answer. The most probably word that the NT writers would use to mean "brothers", if Mary indeed had other biological children is.... adelphos!

I said it before, I don't need to read a paragraph (or 10) about how adelphos cannot mean biological brothers. It is just non-sense to me considering the umpteen points that are brought to the table... and there is much more.

For example:
I have 5 children ages 8,4,3,2, and 11 months. Caring for this many children is a lot of work. My wife and I have to referee, judge disputes, discipline, feed, clean, watch, give them the attention they all demand, and try to get a little rest in the meanwhile. Watching that many children is a lot of work.
You would be surprised how much help we need! We don't get enough help.
I understand how easy it is to lose track of one (or even two) of them because the baby is crying, the 2 year old is demanding attention, the 3 year old is getting himself into endless trouble.... and round and round we go.
Oh, I did I say looking after that many little ones is a lot of work?
It is a lot of work.
Even with [only] five children there have been times when for periods of time it dawns on us, where is the oldest? Then we clue in! Wow, we haven't seen him for a while!
It is very easy to lose track when there are so many children. It is scary, and believe me, we had a few scares!

I can relate very well to Mary when she (and her whole family) went a days journey from Jerusalem. Jesus, being 12 years old... and Mary and Joseph with no birth control must have had a lot! Probably much much more than 5. I can understand how easy it would be to have lost the oldest boy.

Trust me, if you had a lot of children year after year you would understand.

But suppose the argument that Mary had only one child was true. It takes a lot of imagination, and a lot of explanation to explain how Mary's "only" boy was lost for a whole day without her noticing!

Yeah, yeah, I know the argument would be "well, Mary was just so busy with everyone else"... yada, yada....
All I got to say is ask someone who has one very special child how easy it is to lose that child for several hours without missing him.
On the other hand, ask someone with 10 children how easy it is to lose one for several hours without missing him.

Common sense. The one with many children is much more likely to be distracted with the needs of all the other little ones (and possibly a baby).

But what, or who would distract a mother from watching her oldest as much as a baby, a 1 year old, a 2 year old, a 4 year old, a 5 year old, a 6 year old, a 7 year old, a 8 year old, a 10 year old, and an 11 year old?

Take it from me... having lots of children, Mary would have been easily distracted and lose track of Jesus.

Would Mary be so distracted by her uncle? her cousin? her friend? that she forgets about her "only" child?

To anyone who argues such I say - Nonsense. Worse than nonsense... hogwash!

I suppose one could say Mary/Joseph were either incompetent parents or were indeed very busy with a large family.

 

[Thekla]

I suppose one could say Mary/Joseph were either incompetent parents or were indeed very busy with a large family.

Luke states that they thought Jesus was with the company - presumably their relatives and acquaintances. Luke doesn't mention any other children, just Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.

As the mother of six children, I can safely say that there is nothing that would have me so distracted that I would misplace one child for an entire day without noticing. And in this instance there were two parents.

 

[MamaZ]

Mary had other children. That is why the greek term adelphos was used. There are other greek terms for cousins. She was a Jewish woman born under the law and knew that Children are a heritage of the Lord. Jesus being her first born for the very fact that Prophecy was fulfilled that a virgin would give birth. After that there is no reason for Mary not to continue having children. For the Prophecy had been fulfilled and Christ was born. Praise to His glorious name.

 

[Kristos]

OK. I haven't been on this forum for a while. Lots of things happening. My mother battling cancer... busy caring for a 7 member family (wife, I, 5 children)... etc...etc..

In continuing with part 1 of this thread, I want to ask Thekla one question:

Suppose that Mary indeed had other children. If Jesus indeed had brothers (half-brothers) through Mary...

What Greek word would the writers of the NT use for "brothers"?

No dancing around definitions.
One word answer is requested. No more!

No ifs, ands, or buts.
One word answer is requested. No more!

Obviously it wouldn't have used the word brother at all - they would have been called the children (sons and/or daughters) of Mary. Surly not all of the evangelists would have omitted this point if it had indeed been the case.

 

[baristaben]

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

It doesn't make contextual sense to say that carpenter directly means Joseph and mother directly means Mary, but that the "brothers and sisters" were indirect and less literal and specific. That's just not how the Bible writers did things.

 

[Thekla]

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

It doesn't make contextual sense to say that carpenter directly means Joseph and mother directly means Mary, but that the "brothers and sisters" were indirect and less literal and specific. That's just not how the Bible writers did things.

"Adelphos" has a number of meanings. Here are some examples:

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. Matthew 14:3 (different mothers)

And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Acts 7:13 (the brothers were born of two mothers)

And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. Genesis 14: 12-14 (Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew)

When reading this term, it is impossible to know a biological relationship without further description.

 

[baristaben]

"Adelphos" has a number of meanings. Here are some examples:

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. Matthew 14:3 (different mothers)

And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Acts 7:13 (the brothers were born of two mothers)

And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. Genesis 14: 12-14 (Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew)

When reading this term, it is impossible to know a biological relationship without further description.

It is not impossible because of the contextualization of the passage. That's what I am saying. The writers would not have gone from specific family members to a broad, general term within the same sentence like that. It's too.... convoluted.

 

[Thekla]

It is not impossible because of the contextualization of the passage. That's what I am saying. The writers would not have gone from specific family members to a broad, general term within the same sentence like that. It's too.... convoluted.

Given the meaning of the term, it would be the appropriate term to use also for a variety of relationships as a group.

In Scripture, I've only found the term used where there is a relationship through a common male.

Scripture doesn't tell us that Herod and Philip had different mothers; and in cases where there isn't more information given, per the usage of the term we just cannot know what the relationship was for sure (except that it refers back to a common male).

 

[Standing Up]

"Adelphos" has a number of meanings. Here are some examples:

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. Matthew 14:3 (different mothers)

And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Acts 7:13 (the brothers were born of two mothers)

And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. Genesis 14: 12-14 (Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew)

When reading this term, it is impossible to know a biological relationship without further description.

Examples are of same father different mother. You're saying Jesus and the brothers had the same father, but the brothers and Jesus had different mothers? Or simply impossible, unless we look at the context, to tell?

 

[Thekla]

Examples are of same father different mother. You're saying Jesus and the brothers had the same father, but the brothers and Jesus had different mothers? Or simply impossible, unless we look at the context, to tell?

Joseph was known as the father of Jesus (attested in Scripture);though not a biological parent of Jesus he certainly took on that role (or Christ would not have been allowed in the Temple).

However, given the usage of the term, it cannot be said for certain that the adelphos/i were biological children of Joseph.

 

[Standing Up]

Joseph was known as the father of Jesus (attested in Scripture);though not a biological parent of Jesus he certainly took on that role (or Christ would not have been allowed in the Temple).

However, given the usage of the term, it cannot be said for certain that the adelphos/i were biological children of Joseph.

So, you're not certain about the virgin conception then? There's no context you may rely upon to steady your faith?

 

[Thekla]

So, you're not certain about the virgin conception then? There's no context you may rely upon to steady your faith?

Could you explain, based on my post, how you came to think that re: my belief ?