Mary Have No Other Kids?

[Circle_Master]

hyper posted something about this in another thread--thought i'd make a new one to keep it clean

Matthew 13:53-58

When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

I've seen many of you argue that Mary never had any other children. Is there a plain interpretation here that I'm missing? I read this and automatically assume Mary had other children, and I am not aware of any cultural tidbits that may spin this in a different direction.

Edited December 29, 2003 by Circle_Master

[hyperdulia again]

In Hebrew and Aramaic there is no word for cousin. The same word was used for all male line relatives.

I'd also like to point to an Old Testament passage where the daughters of a dead rich man are commanded by God to marry their "brothers" in order to get their inheritances. They had no brothers and in any case it was after the incest prohibition, so there wouldn't have been a Divine command to do so. They were commanded to marry their cousins, the sons of their father's brother.

I'll now try to find the Hebrew and Aramaic word for brother and the Biblical passage I referred to.

[Circle_Master]

According to my lexicon sources, "brother" could refer to relatives, however "sisters" in the passage just about always means bloodline sister. This would indicate the other term is referring to the same thing.

Also, I would check out http://www.ntrmin.org/images/questions/MattAramaicGreek.html as I am assuming that you believe Matthew to have been written in Aramaic first. There are some good points made in the article.

[hyperdulia again]

This is an excellent article.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

[electricdisk]

You are absolutely right... What a revelation! I cannot believe you actually found a passage which completely disproves 2000 years of Catholic teaching. Wow. Who knew the Church had an achillies heel?

You know?, whenever a preacher/pastor/priest say to their congregation...

"Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you...."

I had no idea that the priest/preacher/pastor was VERY busy making babies, and everyone he is speaking to are his actual brothers and sisters - How can one assume otherwise... I mean, why else would he say "Brothers and Sisters"????....

AND you forgot the part

"Aren't all his sisters with us?" - Jesus must have had MANY sisters too? I wonder how many? 3-4-5 ???

*****

The point of the passage is to DISPROVE the fact that Jesus was the son of God. They were saying "We know his cousin, Judas, his mother mary, his nephew james, his cousin Joseph..."

i.e. They ALL had HUMAN parents, how can this dude claim to be divine, how can he be the son of God? If *you* were claiming to be the son of God, we would do the same, "How can you be the son of God, since we know your mother gave you birth and your father is so-and-so."

I am glad that I am not using your theology class to teach me things about God, his angels and his saints, otherwise I would have been told (Incorrectly) that you do not know of any "cultural bias" which would make the passage have a different meaning - GO LOOK IT UP! THERE IS CLEAR CULTURAL BIAS if you took the time to look it up. You don't want to look it up.

You would do better to ask GOD (not the phatmass forum) to clear up these points for you. He, along with the holy spirit will guide you into truth which you think you already own.

[hyperdulia again]

I'll look at yours if you'l look at mine.

[hyperdulia again]

umm..electricdisk you ok hon'?

[electricdisk]

Sorry, I am out of my "sandbox" and reading posts that I shouldn't. It isn't reading that is the problem, but rather responding to them that gets me in trouble. I just get bent out of shape.

Like this:

A teacher is teaching class, all students are listening attentively, when some "know-it-all" comes in the class and starts telling the students that 1+1 = 3. Yes, this person believes that 1+1=3, but they start challenging the teacher's authority and attacking her credentials.

The point of the thread ISN'T interfaith dialog. Go check out all the main page which that posted link takes you to. Lies, distortion, clear bias, blatant hate and disrespect for Holy Mother Church, her precepts and her teachings.

(shakes dust off feet)

[Circle_Master]

i'll ignore electricdisk for now.

Good article hyperdulia, I am glad it argued for it from the Greek as well, and didn't assume of an Aramaic copy of Matthew. That can account for all of the verses without twisting from first glance.

This would lead to a second question.. if Mary had no other sons except Jesus, then why was James accepted as inspired? I have always heard that this James would be the brother of Jesus since the apostle James was recorded to have been martyred years before this entered circulation.

[hyperdulia again]

James was accepted because it was written by some who almost certainly was a kinsman of our Lord and because it contained no doctrinal error.

It had never crossed my mind that Matthew may not been originally written in Aramaic. I'll have to look for more info on that.

[dUSt]

if Mary had no other sons except Jesus, then why was James accepted as inspired? I have always heard that this James would be the brother of Jesus since the apostle James was recorded to have been martyred years before this entered circulation.

I don't understand. What makes the other books inspired? Why would James have to be either an apostle or a brother to Jesus for it to be inspired?

[electricdisk]

Hey Circle....

Sorry about the ranting above...

That is why I stay out of these forums... (normally)

I was looking for the music forum and came in here by mistake.

I know you are honestly debating and I will jump off the field and watch from the sidelines...

My bad.

[Circle_Master]

thanks for the apology

as for dUSk, maybe that book will help, because I'm not sure how good my answer is for that currently.

[Bruce S]

This is one of those Catholic "problems" that takes about twenty paragraphs of convoluted "dancing" to make a point, THAT IS COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Christianity is ABOUT Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit. Everyone else is a sideshow to the main event.

On Protestant boards this is discussed all the time. And I've listened to hours of debates live, verbal, between great Catholic propagandists like Mitch Pacwa the Jesuit from ETWN [ my favorite Catholic guy on TV, just about the best Catholic theologian interfacing with the rest of the world today ] and others from the Protestant side.

What makes this interesting to me is the NEED to "prove" the unprovable, as it breaks open the entire "Mary Thing" that Catholics apparently have built up over the centuries to the heights of abusurdity.

However, I now know every possible Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew nuance behind the word "Brother" and after all that reading, CONTEXT is always completely overlooked.

Words don't exist indepently of the rest of the sentence, or the paragraph.

When it takes twenty paragraphs of convoluted "teaching" to show me that what is CLEARLY there, isn't....

I have to sit back and say.

As my new AVATAR indicates, Galileo was right after all...

Just took a few centuries for the Catholic Church to come clean on it...

Edited December 29, 2003 by Bruce S

[cmotherofpirl]

"catholic" problem

We don't have a problem, you do.

You are trying to prove the early Church wrong.