I'm hung up on Mary. - Page 5

Ion · #61 Sep 13, '12, 8:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

I am not understanding what you mean.

The argument here is over whether Jesus had brothers who were Mary's children. The arguments posed against the positive is that in the Jewish culture, cousins were called brothers and sisters.

I am saying that there is a category for "brother" who is the son of the same mother and it is the same designation for Jesus' brothers, and that they being so closely referenced and identified with Joseph and Mary as parents that it would be unlikely that it is not referring to Mary's children. Just very unlikely.

No, you said "Mary's children" ; so where it is written this?

Erick_Ybarra · #62 Sep 13, '12, 8:50 pm

Well, if you just hear someone say Jesus' father, mother, and brothers.....why should there be a need to say "mary's children"? Just because of the slim possibility that these "brothers" are cousins? No, it is unlikely. All throughout the NT into Acts 2, luke records that the mother of Jesus was praying and His brothers were there as well. No mentions of Mary's sister or Joseph's sister. It's pretty straightforward enough to see that the traditions did not really have an easy way to explain this away.

Farsight001 · #63 Sep 13, '12, 8:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

I am not understanding what you mean.

The argument here is over whether Jesus had brothers who were Mary's children. The arguments posed against the positive is that in the Jewish culture, cousins were called brothers and sisters.

I am saying that there is a category for "brother" who is the son of the same mother and it is the same designation for Jesus' brothers, and that they being so closely referenced and identified with Joseph and Mary as parents that it would be unlikely that it is not referring to Mary's children. Just very unlikely.

Mary is never actually identified as their mother, though.

Erick_Ybarra · #64 Sep 14, '12, 12:00 am

Ok, so if you reference an individual as the son of a father, the son of a mother, and the brother to brothers.....would this not assume that the mother of the individual is the mother of the brothers of the individual?

It is simply an assumption that would have been made by anyone and this is the kind of assumption that is allowed in reading the New Testament.

It is very unlikely that Joseph had previous children.

Ion · #65 Sep 14, '12, 2:42 am

Tradition should be your guide in understanding the scriptures.

Erick_Ybarra · #66 Sep 14, '12, 5:31 am

I love tradition.
I believe in many things that are exclusively revealed through tradition. However, when it comes to a contradiction as clear and straightforward as this, it is unavoidable to speak up and be concerned.

Farsight001 · #67 Sep 14, '12, 6:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

Ok, so if you reference an individual as the son of a father, the son of a mother, and the brother to brothers.....would this not assume that the mother of the individual is the mother of the brothers of the individual?

It is simply an assumption that would have been made by anyone and this is the kind of assumption that is allowed in reading the New Testament.

It is very unlikely that Joseph had previous children.

Or the children of the father from a previous marriage. Or adopted siblings. Or brothers as in fellow believers.

You say it is very unlikely that Joseph had previous children. Did you not know that there are other ancient documents from the days of the early church that actually describe Joseph as having other children?

**Holly3278** · #68 Sep 14, '12, 6:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Collins

So I'm reading through the CCC as a born and raised Protestant who is certain God is leading to the Catholic Church, much to my fighting and refusing (due to family security--I'm a Youth Pastor and full of fear about making the transition, see the Vocations forum for that).

I'm loving the CCC and have not yet disagreed, but I'm having a hard time with Mary. I'm now a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary after research and reading (prior to I was not), but I'm having a hard time with the idea that Mary remained sinless in life and the bodily taking up to heaven at the end of her life (assumption).

Can anyone point me to a good resource that will spell this out in a convincingly Biblical and/or reasonable manner? Or, if you are able to articulate the position for a Protestant here, that would be greatly appreciated!

As for her being sinless her whole life, I can't say much because I am not studied enough to know how to defend this teaching.

However, as for her assumption, I think I can try to defend that although my defense might be very weak. There are other people in the Bible who were assumed into Heaven besides Mary although Mary's assumption is not listed in the Bible as far as I know. Take for example Enoch and Elijah.

Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.
(Genesis 5:24 NAB)

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was found no more because God had taken him. Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.
(Hebrews 11:5 NAB)

When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, he and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. Stay here, please, Elijah said to Elisha. The LORD has sent me on to Bethel. As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, Elisha replied, I will not leave you. So they went down to Bethel, where the guild prophets went out to Elisha and asked him, Do you know that the LORD will take your master from over you today? Yes, I know it, he replied. Keep still. Then Elijah said to him, Stay here, please, Elisha, for the LORD has sent me on to Jericho. As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, Elisha replied, I will not leave you. They went on to Jericho, where the guild prophets approached Elisha and asked him, Do you know that the LORD will take your master from over you today? Yes, I know it, he replied. Keep still. Elijah said to Elisha, Please stay here; the LORD has sent me on to the Jordan. As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, Elisha replied, I will not leave you. And so the two went on together. Fifty of the guild prophets followed, and when the two stopped at the Jordan, stood facing them at a distance. Elijah took his mantle, rolled it up and struck the water, which divided, and both crossed over on dry ground. When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, Ask for whatever I may do for you, before I am taken from you. Elisha answered, May I receive a double portion of your spirit. You have asked something that is not easy, he replied. Still, if you see me taken up from you, your wish will be granted; otherwise not. As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, My father! my father! Israel's chariots and drivers! But when he could no longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two. Then he picked up Elijah's mantle which had fallen from him, and went back and stood at the bank of the Jordan.
(2 Kings 2:1-13 NAB)

So, if God can assume Enoch and Elijah into Heaven then why not His own mother, Mary?

Erich · #69 Sep 14, '12, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

Acts 1:12-14 NASB

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

That's explains the whole thing. He had brothers. It is safe not certain to say she had other sons

And what does verse 15 (the one you stopped short of) say?

"At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together)..."

120 persons... that's a lot of brothers of Jesus!

According to http://www.onechurch.org/Brothers_in_the_NT.htm the vast majority of the time that the Greek word "adelphos" and its feminine form "adelphe" appear in the New Testament -- in the King James Version they are usually translated "brother", "brethren", "sister", or "sisters" -- it can not or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

Erich · #70 Sep 14, '12, 7:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

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?"

James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the only named "brothers" of Jesus in all of Scripture. Let's begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:

Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)

So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That's two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:

Matt 10:3: "...'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." (emphasis added)

This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James' father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:

John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (emphasis added)

Look up John 19:25 at http://www.blueletterbible.org/ and click the 'C' icon (for the Strong's Concordance), then click the Strong's number for the name Cleophas. It comes up "father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus."

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the 'sister' of Our Lord's mother - Mary!

So, two of the four 'brothers' have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude:

Acts 1:13 "...James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo'tes, and Jude the brother of James..." (emphasis added)

There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:

Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James..." (emphasis added)

Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!

Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 "Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean..." (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)

Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a 'brethren' or 'brother' of the Christ. Let's go to John's Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called 'brethren'.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to 'Do as He says.'

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast..

So Simon is from Cana, and a 'brother' of the Lord! He's not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus' mother Mary. Even here 'sister' may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

TimothyH · #71 Sep 14, '12, 7:48 am

Mary had one child, by the Holy Spirit.

For Mary to then have had a child by another would mean that the Mother of Our Lord is an adulterer.

It is not possible for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be the son of an adulterer. It is impossible.

That's the bottom line for me.

-Tim-

Erich · #72 Sep 14, '12, 7:49 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

I love tradition.
I believe in many things that are exclusively revealed through tradition. However, when it comes to a contradiction as clear and straightforward as this, it is unavoidable to speak up and be concerned.

.
The contradiction is not in Scripture, but in your interpetation.

TimothyH · #73 Sep 14, '12, 7:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

.
The contradiction is not in Scripture, but in your interpetation.

There have been a few new members here on CAF who use the same techniques.

They argue the literal interpretation of a single word to prove that a major Catholic doctrine is correct and don't look at the context of the cluture, times and beliefs of the authors and their audience, nor the difficulties in translating several ancient languages into english.

There have been several new members since Sept 1 who are now quite active at this technique. It has me very suspicious as to whether there isn't some group which has taken it upon themselves to correct Catholics here at CAF as an apostolate.

-Tim-

Erick_Ybarra · #74 Sep 14, '12, 8:19 am

I would love to embrace Mary's perpetual virginity. The simple fact is the NY says he gmhad brothers who were distinct from the followers of Jesus and that were identified with Mary and Joseph alone....

There is not much of the culture to redefine these elements. Joseph had 6 kids before Mary? Adopted? Cmon. When there is a mother and father with children who are brothers and sisters.....even the 1st century Jew is not gonna speculate.

And why does Mary need to stay a virgin? If the HS is her true spouse then she commuted adultery by marrying jospeh by itself

Ion · #75 Sep 14, '12, 9:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

I would love to embrace Mary's perpetual virginity. The simple fact is the NY says he gmhad brothers who were distinct from the followers of Jesus and that were identified with Mary and Joseph alone....

There is not much of the culture to redefine these elements. Joseph had 6 kids before Mary? Adopted? Cmon. When there is a mother and father with children who are brothers and sisters.....even the 1st century Jew is not gonna speculate.

And why does Mary need to stay a virgin? If the HS is her true spouse then she commuted adultery by marrying jospeh by itself

They really love God. They dedicated their whole life to Him, and didn't consider the marriage an ordinary one, to "multiply". Joseph was old at the time of marriage.
Your "free judgment" reading the gospels brings you in the area of blasphemy, expressed it in the last sentence. I feel sorry for you.