St. Mary . . .

[WIP]

Your error stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.

Can you please provide the sources for this assertion? Otherwise, we're left only with your opinion. Thanks.

 

[Walpole]

Walpole ,
I'm going to ask you kindly to respect the views of others in the same way I am asking others to respect your views.

I will not have this or any other thread locked. However, further outbursts will cause an immediate ban from this thread.

If this continues with additional threads, the offenders will be removed from the Theology forum all together.

Keep pushing it, and members accounts will get perminantly banned.

I'm not perfect, but I am trying to be an example to build one another up. I don't always live up to that expectation, so I understand others will fail to live up to it as well. As a result, I try to extend Grace, which I am doing now.

Bottom line, we all need to practice self control and always focus on unity. I understand this is hard, but nobody ever said being a Christian was easy.

What did I write that triggered this post?

Without a discussion and proper understanding about the very things that divide Christianity, how can you ever expect achieve unity?

"We must understand before we can criticize." - Étienne Gilson

 

[Walpole]

But you deny it when a mother is named, right?

I deny that Mary of Nazareth had any other children because Scripture makes clear she didn't.

If you think you have a verse stating Mary's multiple subsequent maternities following that of Jesus, by all means please post them.

 

[WIP]

I deny that Mary of Nazareth had any other children because Scripture makes clear she didn't.

If you think you have a verse stating Mary's multiple subsequent maternities following that of Jesus, by all means please post them.

I already have and that's where we part. I believe Scripture is quite clear that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born. Which of us is right remains to be seen. Hopefully, we'll both find out one day.

 

[Walpole]

Can you please provide the sources for this assertion? Otherwise, we're left only with your opinion. Thanks.

Sure, here is a Protestant source so as to avoid special pleading...

"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14

In describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel...

"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16

"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106


Source

 

[Walpole]

I already have and that's where we part. I believe Scripture is quite clear that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born. Which of us is right remains to be seen. Hopefully, we'll both find out one day.

You posted the names of people who St. Matthew later describes as the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth.

Scripture does not state Mary of Nazareth had any children other than Jesus Christ. Christ is referred to as the son of Mary, never a son of Mary.

 

[stovebolts]

What did I write that triggered this post?

Without a discussion and proper understanding about the very things that divide Christianity, how can you ever expect achieve unity?

"We must understand before we can criticize." - Étienne Gilson

What triggered that post was not only directed at you, but it was also directed at MarkT and turnorburn or any other members that stumble in.

We need to start showing some Grace to one another. We do this by stating what we believe and why we believe. If somebody disagrees, you listen to what they believe and why they believe. From there, find your common ground and build a relationship with the other on that common ground.

If we build that foundation first, it gives us a platform to speak about our differences with mutual respect for one another. Please note, our theological differences do not need to divide us.

Unity is not uniformity, but rather its the ability to stay together knowing our differences.

I said at the offset of this thread that we need to respect each other's views. That means we can express our views, but we are not going to start making claims that the other view is wrong and putting the focus on how wrong the other is, wash, rinse, repeat....

It is a given, and stupid to believe that every member of this site is going to think as highly of Mary as others. And if it is anyone's hearts desire to run the other through the mill on this or any other topic, speak up now and I'll start terminating accounts now so we can all save some time and aggravation.

 

[GodsGrace]

I deny that Mary of Nazareth had any other children because Scripture makes clear she didn't.

If you think you have a verse stating Mary's multiple subsequent maternities following that of Jesus, by all means please post them.

If something is not stated in scripture,,,we cannot assume that it did NOT happen. We can only believe positive statements.

One theory put forth is that Joseph may have had other children when he married Mary because he was so much older.

I can also say that some Catholic theologians believe that Jesus might have had siblings...there's is no way to know this for sure -- either side can be "proven".

I fail to understand why this is important....?
What difference does it make if Jesus had brothers? (from Mary).

 

[Walpole]

What triggered that post was not only directed at you, but it was also directed at MarkT and turnorburn or any other members that stumble in.

We need to start showing some Grace to one another. We do this by stating what we believe and why we believe. If somebody disagrees, you listen to what they believe and why they believe. From there, find your common ground and build a relationship with the other on that common ground.

If we build that foundation first, it gives us a platform to speak about our differences with mutual respect for one another. Please note, our theological differences do not need to divide us.

Unity is not uniformity, but rather its the ability to stay together knowing our differences.

I said at the offset of this thread that we need to respect each other's views. That means we can express our views, but we are not going to start making claims that the other view is wrong and putting the focus on how wrong the other is, wash, rinse, repeat....

It is a given, and stupid to believe that every member of this site is going to think as highly of Mary as others. And if it is anyone's hearts desire to run the other through the mill on this or any other topic, speak up now and I'll start terminating accounts now so we can all save some time and aggravation.

It seems to me like everyone is having a pleasant and courteous discussion. You post reminds me of the "tolerance" and "respect" we see from the progressives in American politics: "If you don't agree with me, I will simply silence you."

One of the reasons I like this site is because the dialogue is courteous and does not have the vitriol posters at other forums display. If you want to start banning people, I think this place will quickly become a desert. Let me know if this is your plan, as I will stop inviting people to come here.

 

[WIP]

You posted the names of people who St. Matthew later describes as the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth.

Scripture does not state Mary of Nazareth had any children other than Jesus Christ. Christ is referred to as the son of Mary, never a son of Mary.

Can you please post the Scripture reference that specifically states what you say above about Mary of Cleophas?

 

[stovebolts]

It seems to me like everyone is having a pleasant and courteous discussion. You post reminds me of the "tolerance" and "respect" we see from the progressives in American politics: "If you don't agree with me, I will simply silence you."

One of the reasons I like this site is because the dialogue is courteous and does not have the vitriol posters at other forums display. If you want to start banning people, I think this place will quickly become a desert. Let me know if this is your plan, as I will stop inviting people to come here.

If it Seems to You.... Then perhaps your heart, as well as the hearts of others have become calloused from those "other" sites. I understand how that can happen, because it happened to me years ago as well.

I'm not about the number of members this site can attract nor the revenue it can generate. I'm about the quality of the members and bringing glory to God.

Do me a favor would you Brother, and be the bigger man when you disagree with others and use verbiage like, "The way I understand it....".

Let's not continue this discussion openly so we don't throw the thread off course anymore than it already is. Shoot me a PM if you want.

Thanks

 

[Walpole]

If something is not stated in scripture,,,we cannot assume that it did NOT happen. We can only believe positive statements.

Perhaps this should be directed at those who adhere to sola Scriptura; for it is those adherents who believe - absent any Scriptural support - in Mary's supposed multiple subsequent maternities.

One theory put forth is that Joseph may have had other children when he married Mary because he was so much older.

That's a theory and nothing more. It's origin stems in safeguarding Mary's virginity. Depicting Joseph as an old man was a better protector of Mary's virginity than was depicting him as an adolescent.

"The Church does not ordain a man to the priesthood who has not his vital powers. She wants men who have something to tame, rather than those who are tame because they have no energy to be wild. It should be no different with God...Joseph was probably a young man, strong virile, athletic, handsome, chase and disciplined; the kind of man one sees sometimes shepherding sheep, or piloting a plane, or working at a carpenter's bench. Instead of being a man incapable of love, he must have been on fire with love...Instead, then, of being dried fruit to be served on the table of the king, he was rather a blossom filled with promise and power. He was not in the evening of life, but in its morning, bubbling over with energy, strength and controlled passion." - The World's First Love, Fulton Sheen

I can also say that some Catholic theologians believe that Jesus might have had siblings...there's is no way to know this for sure -- either side can be "proven".

FYI, the perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Catholic Church. (She was declared the Aeiparthenos at the Church's fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople II in 553 A.D.)

Any Catholic "theologian" who teaches otherwise is denying the Catholic faith.

I fail to understand why this is important....?
What difference does it make if Jesus had brothers? (from Mary).

It is important for several reasons. First, it shows the singular event of the Incarnation. Secondly, it demonstrates that Mary and Joseph's conjugal life was ordered toward a heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to an early one (just like that of Christ's). Third, it shows Mary's life as a type of the Church; virginal, pure and faithful.

 

[Walpole]

Can you please post the Scripture reference that specifically states what you say above about Mary of Cleophas?

Sure...

John 19:25: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

This Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas in Matthew 13:55.

Matthew abbreviates this list by simply naming the oldest two, James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 as this Mary’s (Cleophas) sons.

Ergo, when James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are called Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew 13:55, this can not mean uterine siblings based on the fact that St. Matthew names a different Mary as their mother.



Once again, you cannot impose a 21st century Western nuclear family structure with our own use of “brother” to that of Jewish culture in antiquity. The term had a much broader use in antiquity.

 

[turnorburn]

I agree and will add that if arguning to be right is the goal, we will start to ban offenders from the thread.
I suggest all involved read the Staff Expectations and our community message before proceeding.

i was answering to a comment made by Joseph T:

Catholics believe that purgatory and heaven are "states of being", more precisely a state of being perfected, It is a state just like your present state of being human in a physical existence. Purgatory is but one such state, heaven is another.

What did i say to offend anyone? My statement is the truth isn't it?

 

[WIP]

John 19:25: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

This Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas in Matthew 13:55.

I'm not seeing where the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is even mentioned in Matthew 13:55 or if we actually look at Matthew 13:53-58 (NKJV) it talks of the carpenter's son which clearly points to Joseph and in the same context mentions His mother, Mary, which we know was married to a carpenter named Joseph. In the same context it mentions four specific brothers and sisters not mentioned by name. To me that is about as clear as can be that this is referencing the same Mary that bore our Savior.

53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” 58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

 

[WIP]

Matthew abbreviates this list by simply naming the oldest two, James and Joseph in Matthew 27:56 as this Mary’s (Cleophas) sons.

Again, Cleophas is not mentioned in this text. The James and Joses mentioned may or may not be Jesus' blood brothers. Could be different James and Joses. There's nothing to support this either way.

 

[turnorburn]

After all the year I've been here and nobody answered my question..

Thanks guys..

 

[Walpole]

Again, Cleophas is not mentioned in this text. The James and Joses mentioned may or may not be Jesus' blood brothers. Could be different James and Joses. There's nothing to support this either way.

This Mary is stated to be the mother of James and Joses and is the one who is present at the Cross. Per St. John's Gospel (John 19:25), she is Mary of Cleophas and NOT Mary the Mother of Jesus. Ergo, when James and Joses are called "brothers" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because their mother is Mary of Cleophas.

Once again, in Jewish antiquity, "brother" had a much wider meaning than we modern Westerners use.

 

[Walpole]

I'm not seeing where the wife of Cleophas (Clopas) is even mentioned in Matthew 13:55 or if we actually look at Matthew 13:53-58 (NKJV) it talks of the carpenter's son which clearly points to Joseph and in the same context mentions His mother, Mary, which we know was married to a carpenter named Joseph. In the same context it mentions four specific brothers and sisters not mentioned by name. To me that is about as clear as can be that this is referencing the same Mary that bore our Savior.

53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” 58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

See my post above. (St. John identifies this Mary as Mary of Cleophas.)

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps this should be directed at those who adhere to sola Scriptura; for it is those adherents who believe - absent any Scriptural support - in Mary's supposed multiple subsequent maternities.

Where does it say out of scripture that Jesus did not have brothers? It's very difficult, even considering the culture of that time, to know if the "brothers" spoken of are siblings or if those being spoken of are cousins...which could also be the case.

This link is interesting. It was written by Eusebius, a historian of the 4th century.

https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-brothers-of-jesus-a-fresh-look-at-the-evidence

This is also very interesting with POV from the ECF's, but not in a direct way:

https://christianity.stackexchange....-first-taught-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

That's a theory and nothing more. It's origin stems in safeguarding Mary's virginity. Depicting Joseph as an old man was a better protector of Mary's virginity than was depicting him as an adolescent.

"The Church does not ordain a man to the priesthood who has not his vital powers. She wants men who have something to tame, rather than those who are tame because they have no energy to be wild. It should be no different with God...Joseph was probably a young man, strong virile, athletic, handsome, chase and disciplined; the kind of man one sees sometimes shepherding sheep, or piloting a plane, or working at a carpenter's bench. Instead of being a man incapable of love, he must have been on fire with love...Instead, then, of being dried fruit to be served on the table of the king, he was rather a blossom filled with promise and power. He was not in the evening of life, but in its morning, bubbling over with energy, strength and controlled passion." - The World's First Love, Fulton Sheen

I never said he was that old !
But Mary was a very young girl...probably between 14 and 16. Joseph was much more mature. I'm not familiar with an age given to him,,,but he could have been even 30. We know that he was dead by the time Jesus was crucified in about 30 AD, although this means nothing by itself.

FYI, the perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Catholic Church. (She was declared the Aeiparthenos at the Church's fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople II in 553 A.D.)

Any Catholic "theologian" who teaches otherwise is denying the Catholic faith.

It seems that the early fathers were not in total agreement on this question.
See this link:

https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/p/perpetual-virginity-dogmatic-status-and-meaning.php

It is important for several reasons. First, it shows the singular event of the Incarnation. Secondly, it demonstrates that Mary and Joseph's conjugal life was ordered toward a heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to an early one (just like that of Christ's). Third, it shows Mary's life as a type of the Church; virginal, pure and faithful.

Very good answer...