How Do You Guys Respond To This?

[MC Just]

What we believe about the bible is more reverant than you may think or believe.

[marielapin]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 03:52 PM'] but Mary had other kids.

The Bible says so.

she WASN'T a virgin all her life.

and she WAS born under the law, under sin, like everyone else.

she WAS blessed among women...that IS in the Bible, and I'm not doubting that.

but she IS NOT the mother of God. [/quote]
If you say Mary is not the mother of God, I'm assuming that means that you do not believe Jesus is God?

The Bible does not say that Mary had other kids.

It says that Jesus had "brothers".

There were plenty of places where the Bible could have said: the children of Mary and Joseph are Jesus, child 2, child 3, etc. But it doesn't.

See below.

The Brethren of the Lord

A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.

Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren".

(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

For the Cousin Theory: ST. JEROME, Adv. Helvid. in P.L., XXIII; MILL, Pantheistic Principles, 220-316; VIGOUROUX, Les Livres saints et la critique, V, 397-420; CORLUY, Les frères de N.S.J. C. in Etudes (1878), I, 5, 145; MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 6-54; CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1897), III, 592 sqq.; SCHEGG, Jacobus der Br¨der des Herrn (Munich, 1883); LAGRANGE in Rev. Bibl. (1906), 504, 505. For the Step-Brother Theory : LIGHTFOOT, Comm. on Gal., 252-291. For the Helvidian View : HASTINGS, Dict. Bib., I, 320; ZAHN, Forschungen, VI, Brueder und Vettern Jesu (Leipzig, 1900).

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='Sammy Blaze' date='Mar 8 2004, 12:37 PM'] The Bible says:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
-1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) Jesus Christ of Nazareth... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
-Acts 4:10-12 (KJV) [/quote]
As if any good Catholic with a grip on what the Church teaches would dispute that Jesus is the only way to salvation!

In addition, if Jesus were the only mediator between God and man, why did God send Gabriel to deliver the news to Mary? God can do anything He wants. Why didn't he just tell her Himself? (BTW, I'm not questioning God--I'm just using this as an example to prove a point.) By their way of thinking, it was even wrong for God to use an angel to mediate between himself and man.

God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 02:43 AM'] I was wondering if when you guys had the time, if you could go thru, piece by piece and give me where YOU PERSONALLY stand...not what the Catholic Church teaches, but where you PERSONALLY stand with what the site says in its different pieces and parts. Now, I know how important the beliefs of "the Church" are and how much you/we should value them, but if your church is teaching something wack, isn't it YOUR/MY/OUR job to go back, read the Bible, keep it in context, and see exactly what the deal REALLY is? [/quote]
Hi, Lumberjack. Welcome to Phatmass.

As Catholics, our personal beliefs and what the Church teaches coincide. What the Church teaches is correct, because of what Jesus said to our first pope, Peter.

[b]And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19[/b]

We don't question this. Our personal beliefs are what the Church teaches us.

Hope this helps. God bless.

[the lumberjack]

I'm not imposing anything...and I'm defintely not bringing new revelation...and I'm definitely NOT a know it all, by ANY means.

The catholic church did not write the Bible, the Prophets, Judges, and Kings of the old testament did...the Apostles, Disciples and Brethren of the new testament did.

and the bible is unchanging...no matter who wrote it and how much was added and how much its distorted and whatever else is done to it. WE can ALWAYS go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see EXACTLY what was meant and said, without having to see the interpretation of one man or another.

and if you say that Mary had no more children, fine, you believe that...but the Bible does say otherwise...in Greek, not english.

hopefully this site isn't offensive:

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org"]a DOPE onliine concordance[/url]

I'm not the only person on these boards to say that this concordance IS dope, and has MUCH to offer us to learn.

-----

and Mrs Frozen, God didn't tell her himself cuz she would have exploded into a bajillion little chunks. No human can gaze upon the Glory of the Almighty God and live...ain't that right? See Moses's story. And Jesus didn't tell her and Joseph Himself cuz....well, then He would have ALREADY been here!

and Gabriel wasn't a mediator...he was/is a messenger.

delivering a message from God and talking to us and talking to God for us are different, and I hope you agree.

-----

and Marielapin,

at the Council of Chalcedon (451a.d.) wasn't Mary given the title of Theokotos? which means God-bearer, or Mother of God? Well see, the thing is Mary was truly Jesus' mother, but I mean, come on, she was Christ's mother in respect to his humanity, not His deity. God CHOSE her to give birth to the Messiah, not the other way around.like I've said, "blessed among women" sure...but even Christ HIMSELF downplayed the relationship with her while TOTALLY emphasizing His relationship with His believers....Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 11:27-28

love.

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:57 PM'] and the bible is unchanging...no matter who wrote it and how much was added and how much its distorted and whatever else is done to it. WE can ALWAYS go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see EXACTLY what was meant and said, without having to see the interpretation of one man or another.

and if you say that Mary had no more children, fine, you believe that...but the Bible does say otherwise...in Greek, not english.

[/quote]
1. The original Greek and Hebrew is moot if you don't know how to interpret the Bible correctly.

2. You forget that Jesus and His disciples etc. spoke Aramaic, and the original Greek Bible was the translation of the original Aramaic words spoken. So no, the Bible doesn't say what you claim it says at all regarding Mary's other alleged offspring.

[cmotherofpirl]

Nobody ever said Mary was mother of God the Father. But she is definitely the Mother of God the Son. Jesus recieved all of his humanity from his mother. THat is why she is Theokotos, just to answer that specific heresy.

Jesus was an only child.

In Aramaic, brother refers to cousins and kins as well as actual biological brothers. If Jesus had actuial siblings He would not have given His mom to John to be cared for.

It has been the constant teaching for 2000 years Jesus had no immediate family.
So I 'll take the Church's word for it.

Its funny you think Mary would have exploded if she had seen God. She CARRIED God the Son in her body for 9 months. One reason she had to be born sinless

[Trying2BFaithful]

[quote]and the bible is unchanging...no matter who wrote it and how much was added and how much its distorted and whatever else is done to it. WE can ALWAYS go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see EXACTLY what was meant and said, without having to see the interpretation of one man or another.

and if you say that Mary had no more children, fine, you believe that...but the Bible does say otherwise...in Greek, not english.[/quote]

<sigh>...Lumberjack, please do not take my response as a criticism, but you are falling victim to your own context. What, pray tell, does that mean?

Your conception of the word "brother" or "brethren" is a very English, literal understanding. The words "brother" and "brethren" are [i]roughly[/i] translated into English from the original Greek and/or Aramaic in these circumstances. While close in meaning, historical connotations from 2,000 years ago can be very different from the modern, American, English connotations. A small anecdote might help.

I studied Catholicism and modern missionary work in Cameroon (West Africa) a year and a half ago. Cameroon is predominantly Catholic but there is a large contingent of Protestants. Throughout the course of my research, one observable difference between the Catholic v. Protestant debate in the U.S. versus Africa is the nature of respective ideological differences. This issue (regarding Jesus' brother) has ZERO relevance in Cameroon, and I'll tell you why. Western African languages such as Bamileke, Fulbae, Kinuri, etc. use the word for "brother" very loosely. In these cultures, the translations for "brother" or "brethren" indicate a very close male companion including but not limited to blood brothers, cousins, and friends. The issue regarding whether or not Jesus had blood brothers for them, thus, is moot. Most Cameroonian Christians unanimously exhort that there is no direct indication of such in scripture. There linguistic connotations of "brother" and "brethren" are very different from yours. Ultimately, the Bible makes no definitive proclamation that Jesus had blood brothers who were children of Mary and Joseph.

That being said, it is clear that the words "brethren" and "brother" had historical connotations of their own when originally used, and that is what we strive to understand. Marielapin did a fine job of trying to clear things up for you. If confusion or debate surrounds an issue such as this, who are we to turn to for the right answer? Well, if we take your approach and consult the Bible, it'll send us right to the Church.

Hope this helps.

-Patrick

[cmotherofpirl]

Patrick can you start a thread somewhere and talk about your experiences of the African Catholic church?

[Trying2BFaithful]

Sure, I'll try to post the research paper I wrote. It is experiential research with historical background. It's more like a history paper with a diary included but I think you'll appreciate it. It is, however, very very long. I'll work on it and post it later.

-Patrick

[Trying2BFaithful]

[quote]at the Council of Chalcedon (451a.d.) wasn't Mary given the title of Theokotos? which means God-bearer, or Mother of God? Well see, the thing is Mary was truly Jesus' mother, but I mean, come on, she was Christ's mother in respect to his humanity, not His deity. God CHOSE her to give birth to the Messiah, not the other way around.like I've said, "blessed among women" sure...but even Christ HIMSELF downplayed the relationship with her while TOTALLY emphasizing His relationship with His believers....Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 11:27-28[/quote]

I feel compelled to respond to this as well.

You are misrepresenting/misunderstanding what the Catholic Church teaches and what faithful Catholics believe. We do not hold that Mary was the mother-creator of God the Father. We, as Catholic Christians, believe in a triune God. God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When referring to Son, meaning Jesus, we do not believe that he is only 1/3 of God. We revere him as both [i]fully human [/i]and [i]fully divine[/i]. To say that Mary is the Mother of God, refers to the FACT that she is the earthly mother of God made flesh, who is the Son, Jesus. We do not refer to her as the mother of the Holy Spirit or the mother of God the Father.

I believe you fundamentally misunderstand the "Trinity," which almost all Protestants also believe in. (By the way, try finding the word "trinity" in the Bible if its your only authority on earth!). Triune does not mean that God has three parts or divisions which collectively but not separately contain the totality of God. Each Person- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- is fully divine. However, "God" has also these three distinct Persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I hope I conveyed this correctly without making any Theological errors. Help me out here Catholics!

[the_rev]

Cmother, said everything I would have said!

[Archangel]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 8 2004, 11:57 AM']The catholic church did not write the Bible, the Prophets, Judges, and Kings of the old testament did...the Apostles, Disciples and Brethren of the new testament did.[/quote]
The "Apostles, Disciples and Brethren" were Catholic.

In addition, the Catholic Church decided at Councils in Hippo, Carthage, and Trent which books were truly inspired by God.

[the lumberjack]

what about Christ's sisters?

Mary's other sons included Joses (Joseph), James, Judas, and Simon. There were evidently sisters as well, but they are unnamed (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

are these cousins as well?

and why do you choose to believe that brother is translated SOLELY as cousin?...if you guys said, as well as I know, that is also translated as blood brother.

so it can fit the mold? I hope not.

and if you're saying that faithful Catholics don't believe EVERYTHING the Catholic church teaches....then I might be dumbfounded...for a second. till everyone comes on here and says otherwise anywho.

its still all love.

[Chrisjohn04]

Hello Lumberjack may the peace of Christ be with you and everyone else here. I am a former Protestant (Methodist) married to a Protestant (Episcopalian) with Protestant Parents (Baptist, Presbyterian) so I see your view. I'm assumin gthat by sayin that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other kids you mean the stories where she shows up to stop Christ from teaching. This is a fair point and I acknowledge your skepticism, but (and there is always a but) actually the term Brothers and sisters was used pretty frequently during the time of Christ to those that are close to us. So this is not entirely unexpected, for a solid Catholic point of view look online for a book called Christs Mother & Ours by Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M. it will explain most of the details far better than us, plus it's relatively short. Early Christians actually had no problem with her being conceived sinless as a GRACE from God. The title Theotokos in Greek means Mother of God and it was a title that the Church gave to MAry to demonstrate that she was the Mother of God in the Flesh, or Jesus for us average bums. If she weren't the Mother of God than who is Jesus??? IF you want to hear more let me know.
Blessings to you

Chris "The Convert" Johnson