St. Mary . . .

[Walpole]

And you as well

You know, JosephT is the first member in years to bring real theology to our site, and I appreciate it. He has opened the hood and provided supporting bits of exegesis where the real work is done.

I can't say I agree fully, but what I can say is I know the work that went into it, and I better understand his reasoning. But more importantly, I see that it draws himself closer to our Savior and for that, it brings me joy.

That's great. I think we can all learn from one another, without it turning vitriolic, which is what I like from this site.

A blessed Christmas season to you and your family.

 

[Walpole]

As we close out the advent season and prepare enter into the Christmas season, I would like to point out something important about the nativity narratives in St. Luke and Matthew's Gospels: Given these accounts are written after the actual occurrence of the event, along with the fact that neither St. Luke nor St. Matthew were present when they occurred, the only possible source for these narratives was Mary herself, the great Mother of God.

"But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."

 

[JosephT]

on the other hand how about you post scriptures she remained a virgin all her life ..

Isn’t there an adage among those who hold to the philosophies of bible alone that if it isn’t in the bible it isn’t so? Since we’ve eliminated all the “brothers” as uterine related then there must not be any “brothers” related in this way. But, let’s not end it there, it can be shown that it is likely Joseph and Mary took vows of chastity.

There is however, compelling Sacred Scripture to show Mary took ascetic vows of chastity as did Joseph to lend his support in cooperating with Mary’s vows or more likely he had made a vow of chastity himself. Furthermore, they were “married” in every sense of the word we give it today, except for the sharing of marriage bed. Such relationships exist to this very day. Before you go nuts with objections, let me remind you that marriage isn’t defined by going to bed with your spouse, rather it is the will of two coming together in such a way as to be of one heart, one mind and one will, the union of two forming one. We hear the promise of such unions in the Eucharist, those who eat and drink the Real Presence abide in Christ as He abides in them[Cf. John 6:57]. It’s the only math were 1+1 = 1 where there is a gain but no loss yet the sum remains, one.

Not all vows in antiquity were deep commitments; nevertheless, failure to succeed the commitment meant spiritual ruin. Asceticism was practiced hundreds of years before Christ and still practiced today, maybe not in the same austere way as ages ago.

The Lord desires a union with Mary, as humble love for her groom:

Do not consider me that I am brown, because the sun hath altered my color: the sons of my mother have fought against me, they have made me the keeper in the vineyards: my vineyard I have not kept. shew me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou liest in the midday, lest I begin to wander after the flocks of thy companions. If thou know not thyself, O fairest among women, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids beside the tents of the shepherds. To my company of horsemen, in Pharao's chariots, have I likened thee, O my love. Thy cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove's, thy neck as jewels. We will make thee chains of gold, inlaid with silver. [Canticles 1:5-10]​

According to Susanna Elm, author of Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity,
asceticism was common. Sometimes the ascetic made vows of their physical prowess, suffering training as an athlete suffers building strength. Others made vows of abstinence, perhaps limiting food or drink, not unlike fasting. One obvious biblical example is Christ's fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. . . . Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' [c. Matthew 25:1-13; Aprociphal Acts of Paul 8:105- 09, [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God': The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity]

Mary and Joseph lived out her vows in the customs of Judaism dedicating their lives to God. Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow in the Temple; "He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow espouses Mary to God, a vow that not even the Sanhedrin can break; only Joseph can do that. The husband of a young woman had a right to cause her to break the vow. There is a proviso in the Law of Moses; the husband must object on the spot of hearing of his bride’s solemn vow to God. [Cf. Numbers 30:11-17]. If the husband fails to speak out at the appropriate time his duty was to stand aside allowing the woman to fulfill her word. This would not be difficult for a “just” man and especially so for St. Joseph who supported Mary in every way possible. (Sorry ladies, women didn’t get the same right of refusal as men.) In our case Mary herself is the very essence of the vow becoming the spouse of God, and her earthly husband's role becomes the very essence of manhood to assist support and provide for the family. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew, as well as The Protoevangelium of James, indicate St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had both made such vows. Joseph acted in support for his earthly wife "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. . . Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." [Matthew 1:18-19] The indication that Joseph was a "just man" had cultural meaning related to the vows ascetics in Judaism. Unlike some of us today who believe vows are meant to be broken, being a "just man" implied that Joseph followed the Law of Moses impeccably and kept his word.

Mary's response to Gabriel's annunciation was a humble vow of fidelity, consistent with Temple rites of marriage. Thus, we hold the New Eve bore God's eternal new Adam in the form of a sacrificial lamb. She carried Him across the dark seas of sin and death to the shores of our redemption and life. The Ever-Virgin Mary then is the Ark of everlasting life, the mother of our Salvation, and the Queen of Heaven. St. Joseph the oarsman who rows Him into our life.


JosephT

 

[MarkT]

Nor does it rule it in. Yes?

Apparent it was indeed a poplar name, but no more so than "joe"(English, German, French), "Giuseppe" (Italian), "José" (Spanish), "Iosíf" (Greek). There are a kajillion of us. I was on a conference call the other day with 5 other individuals only one of which wasn't called 'Joe'. Confusion reigned.

But, then there may be the translation problem, from Aramaic, to Greek - several dialects, to Latin - at least two dialects, to Old English, then more current dialect of English. There may have been varying nuances in the name of these women that through the ages lost their significance and eventually found its way to 'Mary', 'Myriam', or Maria.

That makes it all the more difficult doesn't it? So, to avoid speculation you need to come up with a verse that gives the name of one of the brothers as the son of Mary and Joseph. This isn't the first time I've asked, you've avoided doing so across several posts.




His spiritual brothers or clansmen. I lean to the former rather than the latter.

JoephT

The issue is did Mary have other children? The answer is yes, according to his neighbours, the people who knew him and his mother and his father and his brothers. Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

They know him as the carpenters son. And they know his mother Mary, not some other Mary. And they know his brothers. Not some distant relatives, but his immediate family. Father, mother, children. Otherwise it doesn't work.

 

[MarkT]

Nor does it rule it in. Yes?

Apparent it was indeed a poplar name, but no more so than "joe"(English, German, French), "Giuseppe" (Italian), "José" (Spanish), "Iosíf" (Greek). There are a kajillion of us. I was on a conference call the other day with 5 other individuals only one of which wasn't called 'Joe'. Confusion reigned.

But, then there may be the translation problem, from Aramaic, to Greek - several dialects, to Latin - at least two dialects, to Old English, then more current dialect of English. There may have been varying nuances in the name of these women that through the ages lost their significance and eventually found its way to 'Mary', 'Myriam', or Maria.

That makes it all the more difficult doesn't it? So, to avoid speculation you need to come up with a verse that gives the name of one of the brothers as the son of Mary and Joseph. This isn't the first time I've asked, you've avoided doing so across several posts.




His spiritual brothers or clansmen. I lean to the former rather than the latter.

JoephT

Sorry. His neighbours didn't know his spiritual brothers.

 

[ezra]

The Ever-Virgin Mary then is the Ark of everlasting life, the mother of our Salvation, and the Queen of Heaven. St. Joseph the oarsman who rows Him into our life.

you are welcome to hold to that rather lengthy post but never the less i will stick with jesus way truth life no man comes to the father but by him... acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. romans 14 : 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

1 Corinthians 1:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

so please note in scripture i am to go through Jesus not mary it was him ho dies arose again ascended up to heaven.. you check his tomb there is a big sign BRB i aint here . it was his grave clothes and face napkin found folded neatly in the tomb.. know i am not a expert theologian with a big degree ..i read my Bible merry Christmas

 

[WIP]

It's implicit throughout the Gospels, like the life of Jesus. For Mary and Joseph's marriage was the most unique in all of human history. As such, it was ordered toward the heavenly kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one.

If you would like concrete proof from Scripture, we need simply look at St. Luke's annunciation narrative, where Gabriel appears to Mary, who is already betrothed to Joseph. (Luke 1:27) Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son. Mary's question to Gabriel is, "How will this be"? (future tense - Luke 1:34)

Why would Mary ask how will it be that she will become pregnant - in the future - if she is already betrothed to Joseph? If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations Ezra. I am so happy for you and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

The reason for Mary's puzzlement to Gabriel is because her life was ordered toward something greater.

I believe Mary is asking this question because she was still a virgin and had not yet been with a man. The question makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Walpole]

I believe Mary is asking this question because she was still a virgin and had not yet been with a man. The question makes perfect sense to me.

But Mary is already betrothed to Joseph when Gabriel comes to her.

"...to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son. Mary's question to Gabriel is, "How will this be"? (future tense - Luke 1:34)

Why would Mary ask how will it be that she will become pregnant - in the future - if she is already betrothed to Joseph? If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations WIP. I am so happy for you, and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

The reason for Mary's puzzlement to Gabriel is because her life was ordered toward something greater.

 

[Walpole]

Sorry. His neighbours didn't know his spiritual brothers.

In Jewish antiquity, "brother(s)" had a much wider meaning than we moderns use. There is NO scripture which identifies another as a son (or daughter) of Mary. Thus, any claim that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.

 

[WIP]

But Mary is already betrothed to Joseph when Gabriel comes to her.

"...to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:27)

Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son. Mary's question to Gabriel is, "How will this be"? (future tense - Luke 1:34)

Why would Mary ask how will it be that she will become pregnant - in the future - if she is already betrothed to Joseph? If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations WIP. I am so happy for you, and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

The reason for Mary's puzzlement to Gabriel is because her life was ordered toward something greater.

The same explanation could apply to both of our positions in this. Using your assertion, I also ask why would she ask this question knowing that she was betrothed?

I don't know much about logical fallacies but it seems we are both presenting an argument from silence fallacy so neither is able to conclusively prove our position except to ourselves.

I will give thought to what you have presented. Thank you.

 

[MarkT]

Nor does it rule it in. Yes?

Apparent it was indeed a poplar name, but no more so than "joe"(English, German, French), "Giuseppe" (Italian), "José" (Spanish), "Iosíf" (Greek). There are a kajillion of us. I was on a conference call the other day with 5 other individuals only one of which wasn't called 'Joe'. Confusion reigned.

But, then there may be the translation problem, from Aramaic, to Greek - several dialects, to Latin - at least two dialects, to Old English, then more current dialect of English. There may have been varying nuances in the name of these women that through the ages lost their significance and eventually found its way to 'Mary', 'Myriam', or Maria.

That makes it all the more difficult doesn't it? So, to avoid speculation you need to come up with a verse that gives the name of one of the brothers as the son of Mary and Joseph. This isn't the first time I've asked, you've avoided doing so across several posts.




His spiritual brothers or clansmen. I lean to the former rather than the latter.

JoephT

Re. His brothers, there's no verse that says 'son of Mary'. But Mt. 13:55 includes his brothers - "and are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" So in identifying the parents of Jesus it follows logically that Joseph and Mary are the parents of the brothers as well.

Whether you can accept it or not is the question.

 

[Walpole]

Re. His brothers, there's no verse that says 'son of Mary'. But Mt. 13:55 includes his brothers - "and are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" So in identifying the parents of Jesus it follows logically that Joseph and Mary are the parents of the brothers as well.

Whether you can accept it or not is the question.

No, I do not accept it because St. Matthew (Mt. 27:56) and St. Mark (Mk 15:40) state this mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to be Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth. Thus, we know for certain that these are not Jesus' uterine brothers and hence you only prove the fact that in Jewish antiquity, "brother(s)" had a much wider meaning than we moderns use.

Again, the idea that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.

 

[Walpole]

The same explanation could apply to both of our positions in this. Using your assertion, I also ask why would she ask this question knowing that she was betrothed?

Because Mary knew her conjugal life was not ordered toward procreation, but rather toward the Kingdom of God. Her marriage to Joseph would be the most unique marriage in the history of the world.

I don't know much about logical fallacies but it seems we are both presenting an argument from silence fallacy so neither is able to conclusively prove our position except to ourselves.

I will give thought to what you have presented. Thank you.

I don't think it's a logical fallacy to question why someone who is betrothed would ask how will it be that they will have a child in the future.

Again, think of the analogy I posed earlier. If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations WIP. I am so happy for you, and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

 

[JosephT]

you are welcome to hold to that rather lengthy post but never the less i will stick with jesus way truth life no man comes to the father but by him... acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. romans 14 : 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.


1 Corinthians 1:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

You do know that brother Sosthenes was one of the seventy disciples don’t you? Well I suppose you don’t; being bible alone. You see St. Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, he wrote sometime before his martyrdom between 253A.D. and 260 A.D. St. Hippolytus was a presbyter at the See of Rome. One of his books (a book outside scripture) listed the 70 disciples. Sosthenes was among those listed.

Sosthenes was a leader in the synagogue of Corinth after Saint Crispus. St. Pamphilus of Cæsarea also wrote Acts of the Apostles before he was likewise martyred. It appears Sosthenes was taken before the judgment seat and beaten by the Greeks. Afterwards St. Sosthenes became bishop of Colophonia. Sosthenes was mentioned in a parallel to Hippolytus book of acts, The Acts of the Seventy Apostles traditionally credited to St. Dorotheus.

Therefore, with certainty we can say Sosthenes was a spiritual member of Christ’s New Israel, the Church.

1 so please note in scripture i am to go through Jesus not mary it was him ho dies arose again ascended up to heaven.. you check his tomb there is a big sign BRB i aint here . it was his grave clothes and face napkin found folded neatly in the tomb.. know i am not a expert theologian with a big degree ..i read my Bible merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too! May you be blessed with Christ’s grace of peace?

I’m not a theologian, nowhere close. I think my place in the Catholic Church is called ‘pew warmer’. To ease your mind I have noted Sacred Scripture, and I’ve taken note of Mary’s role in the salvation of man. No doubt it was Christ that died thence He descended into hell to rise again on the third day. How does Mary take away from any of that?

Tell us, what is it about St. Mary that causes so much fear?

Merry Christmas

JosephT

 

[MarkT]

No, I do not accept it because St. Matthew (Mt. 27:56) and St. Mark (Mk 15:40) state this mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to be Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth. Thus, we know for certain that these are not Jesus' uterine brothers and hence you only prove the fact that in Jewish antiquity, "brother(s)" had a much wider meaning than we moderns use.

Again, the idea that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.

If the Mary in Mt. 27 and Mk. 15:40 was Mary's sister then she had two sons, James and Joseph. But Mary the mother of Jesus had four sons besides Jesus, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas (no relation to Judas Iscariot). So you have James the brother of Jesus Gal. 1:18 and James the son of Mary's sister. And then you have James and John, the sons of Zebedee and their mother.

The point is there were other women besides Mary the mother of our Lord who named their sons James and Joseph.

 

[ezra]

I’m not a theologian, nowhere close. I think my place in the Catholic Church is called ‘pew warmer’. To ease your mind I have noted Sacred Scripture, and I’ve taken note of Mary’s role in the salvation of man. No doubt it was Christ that died thence He descended into hell to rise again on the third day. How does Mary take away from any of that?

Tell us, what is it about St. Mary that causes so much fear?

i have no fear of mary but we do not pray to her nor worship her. she is a chosen vessel used by God to being Christ into the world .if we give mary a place in worship let us also bring rahab the harlot in.. had it not been for her and others the Christ seed would not have been born... God had a plan it took phases of generations to bring it to pass .i have family who are catholic i know others who are catholic there great people. i simply can not agree with the doctrine . that does not mean a catholic can not be saved the whosoever shall call upon can be saved. we all have to come by the way of the cross

Galatians 3:27-29 King James Version (KJV)
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

this is the good news merry Christmas a Savior was born so we could be saved .as paul harvey would say and now you know the rest of the story

 

[MarkT]

Isn’t there an adage among those who hold to the philosophies of bible alone that if it isn’t in the bible it isn’t so? Since we’ve eliminated all the “brothers” as uterine related then there must not be any “brothers” related in this way. But, let’s not end it there, it can be shown that it is likely Joseph and Mary took vows of chastity.

There is however, compelling Sacred Scripture to show Mary took ascetic vows of chastity as did Joseph to lend his support in cooperating with Mary’s vows or more likely he had made a vow of chastity himself. Furthermore, they were “married” in every sense of the word we give it today, except for the sharing of marriage bed. Such relationships exist to this very day. Before you go nuts with objections, let me remind you that marriage isn’t defined by going to bed with your spouse, rather it is the will of two coming together in such a way as to be of one heart, one mind and one will, the union of two forming one. We hear the promise of such unions in the Eucharist, those who eat and drink the Real Presence abide in Christ as He abides in them[Cf. John 6:57]. It’s the only math were 1+1 = 1 where there is a gain but no loss yet the sum remains, one.

Not all vows in antiquity were deep commitments; nevertheless, failure to succeed the commitment meant spiritual ruin. Asceticism was practiced hundreds of years before Christ and still practiced today, maybe not in the same austere way as ages ago.

The Lord desires a union with Mary, as humble love for her groom:

Do not consider me that I am brown, because the sun hath altered my color: the sons of my mother have fought against me, they have made me the keeper in the vineyards: my vineyard I have not kept. shew me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou liest in the midday, lest I begin to wander after the flocks of thy companions. If thou know not thyself, O fairest among women, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids beside the tents of the shepherds. To my company of horsemen, in Pharao's chariots, have I likened thee, O my love. Thy cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove's, thy neck as jewels. We will make thee chains of gold, inlaid with silver. [Canticles 1:5-10]​

According to Susanna Elm, author of Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity,
asceticism was common. Sometimes the ascetic made vows of their physical prowess, suffering training as an athlete suffers building strength. Others made vows of abstinence, perhaps limiting food or drink, not unlike fasting. One obvious biblical example is Christ's fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. . . . Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' [c. Matthew 25:1-13; Aprociphal Acts of Paul 8:105- 09, [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God': The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity]

Mary and Joseph lived out her vows in the customs of Judaism dedicating their lives to God. Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow in the Temple; "He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow espouses Mary to God, a vow that not even the Sanhedrin can break; only Joseph can do that. The husband of a young woman had a right to cause her to break the vow. There is a proviso in the Law of Moses; the husband must object on the spot of hearing of his bride’s solemn vow to God. [Cf. Numbers 30:11-17]. If the husband fails to speak out at the appropriate time his duty was to stand aside allowing the woman to fulfill her word. This would not be difficult for a “just” man and especially so for St. Joseph who supported Mary in every way possible. (Sorry ladies, women didn’t get the same right of refusal as men.) In our case Mary herself is the very essence of the vow becoming the spouse of God, and her earthly husband's role becomes the very essence of manhood to assist support and provide for the family. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew, as well as The Protoevangelium of James, indicate St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had both made such vows. Joseph acted in support for his earthly wife "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. . . Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." [Matthew 1:18-19] The indication that Joseph was a "just man" had cultural meaning related to the vows ascetics in Judaism. Unlike some of us today who believe vows are meant to be broken, being a "just man" implied that Joseph followed the Law of Moses impeccably and kept his word.

Mary's response to Gabriel's annunciation was a humble vow of fidelity, consistent with Temple rites of marriage. Thus, we hold the New Eve bore God's eternal new Adam in the form of a sacrificial lamb. She carried Him across the dark seas of sin and death to the shores of our redemption and life. The Ever-Virgin Mary then is the Ark of everlasting life, the mother of our Salvation, and the Queen of Heaven. St. Joseph the oarsman who rows Him into our life.


JosephT

Nothing you have written has any Scriptural support. Ever wonder why?

 

[WIP]

Because Mary knew her conjugal life was not ordered toward procreation, but rather toward the Kingdom of God. Her marriage to Joseph would be the most unique marriage in the history of the world.



I don't think it's a logical fallacy to question why someone who is betrothed would ask how will it be that they will have a child in the future.

Again, think of the analogy I posed earlier. If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations WIP. I am so happy for you, and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

No, but what I'm saying is both of us might be arguing out of silence.

How about this. Do you believe Simon (Peter) and Andrew were blood brothers?

 

[MarkT]

No, I do not accept it because St. Matthew (Mt. 27:56) and St. Mark (Mk 15:40) state this mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to be Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth. Thus, we know for certain that these are not Jesus' uterine brothers and hence you only prove the fact that in Jewish antiquity, "brother(s)" had a much wider meaning than we moderns use.

Again, the idea that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.

People who knew Jesus when he was growing up knew his mother and his father and his brothers and his sisters. Mt. 13:55 Why would they name Mary's sister's sons his brothers? You say, brother(s) had a much wider meaning back then. Was James the brother of John? So brother means brother most of the time except in this case the people who knew Jesus didn't mean brothers.

Luke 2:7
And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

"Her first born" suggests she had other children.

The Bible says Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. Knew her not.
Matthew 1:25
but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 15:6
So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

 

[stovebolts]

MarkT,
Good morning and I hope you had a Merry Christmas!

Please understand that we are no longer a debate forum and the object of this particular thread is not to prove your right while others are wrong.

You are entitled to your stance as much as anyone and I would ask that you tone down your words a notch or I will remove you from this thread.

I am not asking you to agree with anyone, I am simply asking you to respect that others carry a different view and getting aggresive by using forceful language will not change their mind.