A fellow who recently posted here, Glenn Chatfield, invited me to his blog to read some of his anti-Catholic articles. He said:
Catholics do indeed worship Mary, and ascribe to her the characters of God, as I PROVE here:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.htmlWell, I went there and when I rebutted his claims, he refused to post them.
Glenn E. Chatfield said...
To my readers:
I have received a 3-part comment from a Catholic apologist..... I will not be posting his comments.
I'm not surprised. For those of you interested it is. It only addresses one of his claims, the idea that Mary had several children and Jesus, many brothers.
On the contrary, Scripture is clear that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are actually His cousins. One of the problems with Sola Scriptura is that everyone interprets the Scriptures according to their own ability. Therefore, Sola Scripturists never consider cultural and historical circumstances in regards to translations. For a Sola Scripturist, a "brother" is always a "brother of the womb". Never mind that they, themselves, call each other "brothers in Christ" all the time. And they speak of "Brother Joe" and "Sister Jane" all the time.
Let us go examine the Scriptures on this matter. Are you game? Here we go:
Did Jesus have any brothers?
According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:
Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
However, these brothers and sisters in Christ, fail to realize that the word "brother" has meant much more than "brothers of the womb" from time immemorial. Good friends call themselves "brothers" even today. And a closer examination of Scripture proves that James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are sons of another Mary, not Jesus' mother, but Jesus' aunt.
First, we see that Jesus' mother has a "sister". From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus' mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:
John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:
Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.
Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.
Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:
Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the "sisters" of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.
Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Sometimes she is called "the other" Mary.
Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre.
OK, so far we've established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus' mother. What about Simon and Jude?
Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:
Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.
Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:
Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean:19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus kin.
Let us go examine the Scriptures on this matter. Are you game? Here we go:
Did Jesus have any brothers?
According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:
Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
However, these brothers and sisters in Christ, fail to realize that the word "brother" has meant much more than "brothers of the womb" from time immemorial. Good friends call themselves "brothers" even today. And a closer examination of Scripture proves that James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are sons of another Mary, not Jesus' mother, but Jesus' aunt.
First, we see that Jesus' mother has a "sister". From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus' mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:
John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:
Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.
Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.
Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:
Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the "sisters" of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.
Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Sometimes she is called "the other" Mary.
Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre.
OK, so far we've established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus' mother. What about Simon and Jude?
Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:
Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.
Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:
Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean:19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus kin.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn E. ChatfieldAugust 14, 2018 at 2:11 PM
DeleteAh, you are so disingenuous,
That's not true. I meant everything that I said.
and didn't bother to post my comment as to why your comment was not posted,
Anyone interested in the rest of your comment, can read it on your website. I posted the link YOU provided.
as well as my rebuttal to your Papist nonsense.
If you truly thought it was nonsense, you would have posted it. But the fact is, that you know you can't respond to my rebuttal. That's why you didn't post it. You can't handle it.
Here it is, if you have the courage to post it.
I'll allow your comment, when you post mine. Does that sound fair?
Glenn,
DeleteI'll allow your comments, when you post mine. That sounds fair to me. Otherwise, your failure to post my comments is your admission that you have no response.
And, since my comment, which you disallowed on your website, is posted above and is the subject of this article, feel free to attempt a rebuttal here. Oh, but watch your language. I like polite discussion. All your anti-Catholic diatribe is really unnecessary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIts a very simple concept, Glenn. When you allow my comments, I'll allow yours. And, if you could respond to my comment, as you claim, you would have addressed them, here. But you haven't, because you can't.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteJesse posted a reply to my rebuttal on Glenn's blog. Since Glenn won't post my comments, this is it:
DeleteHello De Maria,
Jesus Christ had literal brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary (Matthew 13:55-57; Mark 6:3-4):
-The context of these passages shows that the meaning of the "brothers and sisters" to be natural family.
-In Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4, the Greek word for sisters is "adelphe" and is also used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to mean natural sister born as to the same mother.
-If this was a reference to more distinct relatives, then why did the writer not use the Greek word "suggenes" (i.e. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:58)?
-Out of the several biblical references mentioning "Jesus' brothers and sisters", NEVER are they called "cousins" or "distant relatives". Brothers are always called "brothers" and sisters are always called "sisters". I believe that the Holy Spirit intentionally made Himself crystal clear.
-If the references to the "brothers and sisters" cannot be literal, then neither is the mother.
Matthew 1:24-25:
-The term "knew" was a modest way of describing sexual relations and is found throughout Scripture (i.e. Genesis 4:1; 17; 25).
-Other verses that use the word until (or till) to mean a change in condition would be Acts 20:11, Acts 23:12, and Revelation 7:3. Context determines the meaning behind words.
-Matthew 1:24-25 is as clear as if it said, "Kept a virgin until wedding day".
-Jesus distinguished between blood brothers verses brothers of faith (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12).
Matthew 1:18:
-"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:18)
John's gospel records a fulfilled prophecy (John 2:15-17) from the Book of Psalms (Psalm 69:8-9). In it, Jesus specifically tells us that He has literal brothers and sisters!
Jesus was Mary's firstborn, not only born (Luke 2:7):
-The word firstborn appears in the New Testament nine times and always means the first of many (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5).
-The New Testament makes a distinction between firstborn and only born (John 1:14; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9).
Answering The "Brother Should Be Translated As Cousin" Argument:
-Defenders of the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary always claim that the word "brother" should be translated as "cousin". However, Koine Greek is an extremely precise language. This argument is refuted because the New Testament occupies a separate Greek word for cousin, which is "anepsios" (i.e. Colossians 4:10). The New Testament never denotes the term "brother" to mean anything other than a literal brother. Why not deny that the textual references to Mary are literal, as well? Why is it wrong to believe that Mary had other children with her husband Joseph, especially when sexual intercourse is advised for married couples to prevent lust and fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)?
Consider Passages Of Scripture Such As John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, And Galatians 1:18-19 And Ask Yourself Whether The Mother Of Jesus Was Truly A Perpetual Virgin, As The Church Of Rome Claims.
Why not simply go with the obvious conclusion presented by the New Testament?
Post a comment.
Unsubscribe to comments on this post.
Posted by Jesse to The Watchman's Bagpipes at August 21, 2018 at 1:02 AM
And this is my reply to Jesse:
DeleteHello De Maria,
Hello Jesse, I'm going to start with your final question, because the answer pretty well demolishes your entire argument.
Why not simply go with the obvious conclusion presented by the New Testament?
We do, Jesse. You are the one who is arriving at a false conclusion. And there are many reasons for that.
1. The New Testament was originally passed on in Tradition. This is what Jesus commanded. Matt 28:18-21
These Traditions are the foundation of the written Scriptures and were passed down by Jesus. These Traditions still survive today. They are the anchor that keeps the Catholic Church from making the same sort of wild mistakes that Protestants make everytime they read the Scriptures.
2. The original Scriptures were not written in English. Nor were they written in modern Greek. They were written in ancient Greek and Latin. And they were written by Catholics who were simply writing down Catholic Doctrine. The same Doctrine which Jesus Christ passed down.
3. You're reading the New Testament in modern English 2000 years removed from the ancient Jewish culture which gave birth to the Christian faith.
Therefore, you can't understand the New Testament, because you have rejected the Traditions which are it's basis.
Jesse cont'd
DeleteJesus Christ had literal brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary (Matthew 13:55-57; Mark 6:3-4):
Nope. The New Testament frequently uses the word "adelphoi" with reference to people who are not brothers and sisters of the womb. For example, when Jesus sends Mary of Magdala to his brothers, He says,
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren (adelphoi), ....
Protestants claim that adelphoi must always be brothers of the womb. Yet, Mary goes to the disciples, instead. Did Mary disobey Jesus? Read the next verse:
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Unless all the disciples are Mary's children of the womb, this doesn't make sense.
-The context of these passages shows that the meaning of the "brothers and sisters" to be natural family.
Only if you follow the traditions of men which Protestants believe. However, Tradition and Scripture tell us that Jesus was an only child. Therefore, any use of the word "adelphoi" must be in the general sense that we use the word "brother" today. As in good friend, cousin, church companion, and many other senses.
-In Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4, the Greek word for sisters is "adelphe" and is also used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to mean natural sister born as to the same mother.
Sure. That is the main meaning of the word. But the word also means cousin and close kin.
-If this was a reference to more distinct relatives, then why did the writer not use the Greek word "suggenes" (i.e. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:58)?
Because the writer was Catholic. And the writer knew that Catholics would understand the true meaning of the word. And if they didn't, they have an infallible Teacher to correct them.
-Out of the several biblical references mentioning "Jesus' brothers and sisters", NEVER are they called "cousins" or "distant relatives". Brothers are always called "brothers" and sisters are always called "sisters". I believe that the Holy Spirit intentionally made Himself crystal clear.
Well, let's see. When Jesus turned to the crowd and said, these are my "adelphoi" and my mother. Was everybody in the crowd a child of Mary's womb?
and when Jesus said, "Mary, go to my brethren...." and Mary went to the disciples. Did Mary misunderstand? And were the 5000 disciples all Mary's children of the womb?
cont'd
more with Jesse:
Delete-If the references to the "brothers and sisters" cannot be literal, then neither is the mother.
Sure it can. There's no rule that says it can't except that which you made up.
Matthew 1:24-25:
The term "knew" was a modest way of describing sexual relations
True. But the entire idea presented there is "knew her not".
and is found throughout Scripture (i.e. Genesis 4:1; 17; 25).
The heos hou dilemma. This is a perfect example of you treating ancient Jewish speech patterns the same as modern English. But you assume too much. heos hou, or "until", was used differently by Jews than by modern English speakers.
So, let's look at the Scripture. Matthew "knew her not until". To, English speakers, that means that Matthew did not know her until a certain point in time and then he did. But to an ancient Jew, that isn't the case. Let me give you an example:
2 Samuel 6:23
“Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.”
That verse says that Mikal had no children until she died. Does that mean that she began to bear children from the grave?
-Other verses that use the word until (or till) to mean a change in condition would be Acts 20:11, Acts 23:12, and Revelation 7:3. Context determines the meaning behind words.
But the context is not the same.
Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Look at the difference in the pattern.
"knew her not until" is not the same as "til break of day and then departed." In order for both to be the same, the first must say, "knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and then ....
There is no, "and then".
-Matthew 1:24-25 is as clear as if it said, "Kept a virgin until wedding day".
Even that doesn't show a change of status after the wedding day, if read in the culture of the ancient Jews.
-Jesus distinguished between blood brothers verses brothers of faith (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12).
On the contrary, Matt 12:46-50 is the verse where Jesus uses the word "adelphoi" in reference to a large crowd. Protestants claim this word must always mean "brothers of the womb"
Matthew 1:18:
-"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:18)
Again, since Catholics have always knows that they never came together sexually, then we know that there must be an alternate meaning. That meaning must be "before they came together in one household."
John's gospel records a fulfilled prophecy (John 2:15-17) from the Book of Psalms (Psalm 69:8-9). In it, Jesus specifically tells us that He has literal brothers and sisters!
Lol! Really? That is a prophet saying that he has alienated himself from the entire nation of Israel. Have you ever heard that Israel killed the prophets. Come on.
cont'd
continuing with Jesse:
DeleteJesus was Mary's firstborn, not only born (Luke 2:7):
-The word firstborn appears in the New Testament nine times and always means the first of many (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5).
-The New Testament makes a distinction between firstborn and only born (John 1:14; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9).
Read about Jewish culture. It would do you a world of good.
Ok, let's see.
OT Jews were polygamous.
Let's say that Jew#1 had two wives. One of them had the Firstborn son and that's all. The other had the rest of the children. All boys.
The Firstborn would receive double the inheritance of the other boys. That's all. It doesn't mean that wife #1 had any more children. Jesus was Mary's first and only son.
Answering The "Brother Should Be Translated As Cousin" Argument:
-Defenders of the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary always claim that the word "brother" should be translated as "cousin". However, Koine Greek is an extremely precise language. This argument is refuted because the New Testament occupies a separate Greek word for cousin, which is "anepsios" (i.e. Colossians 4:10). The New Testament never denotes the term "brother" to mean anything other than a literal brother.
Spoken like a person who gets his knowledge of other languages from dictionaries. Even though most languages have other brothers and cousins. All known languages use the term brother or brethren to mean cousins and other beloved relations. Look at the word brother in English, brother. Oh wait, you're not my real brother so I shouldn't use that word with reference to you. And yet, I did.
Why not deny that the textual references to Mary are literal, as well? Why is it wrong to believe that Mary had other children with her husband Joseph, especially when sexual intercourse is advised for married couples to prevent lust and fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)?
One of the main reasons is that we know that Joseph was a righteous man. In Scripture, righteous men do not have sexual relations with other men's wives. Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit had brought about the birth of Christ. And that means that Mary had become the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph would not dare come to know her physically.
Consider Passages Of Scripture Such As John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, And Galatians 1:18-19 And Ask Yourself Whether The Mother Of Jesus Was Truly A Perpetual Virgin, As The Church Of Rome Claims.
In all those passages, the context shows that they were either some other relative or close friends, but in context with the Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ, we know that they were not the children of Mary.
Why not simply go with the obvious conclusion presented by the New Testament?
And we come full circle. Your conclusion is flawed because it is based upon your false reading of Scripture. You have based your ideas on a reading of Scripture based on modern English which ignores also the ancient Jewish culture and the ancient languages in which it was written.
But your worst mistake is that you ignore the Body which Jesus established to guide you to heaven and to Teach you His Word. The Catholic Church.
Thanks for the reply.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"The New Testament was originally passed on in Tradition. This is what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:18-21)."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, those teachings were written down in epistles. Secondly, the Great Commission is about the preaching of the gospel (which is identified in Scripture). For a more in-depth examination of claims regarding "Sacred Tradition," see this article:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/09/debunking-de-maria-on-sola-scriptura.html
"The original Scriptures were not written in English. Nor were they written in modern Greek. They were written in ancient Greek and Latin. And they were written by Catholics who were simply writing down Catholic Doctrine. The same Doctrine which Jesus Christ passed down."
The original New Testament was not composed in Latin. The Vulgate was a translation of the original manuscripts, and not without textual defects. Moreover, it is not as though the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars who know Koine Greek would affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. They will merely say that it is possible that she was.
Notice how De Maria argues in a circle as he fights tooth and nail for the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity. This is cult-like behavior.
"You're reading the New Testament in modern English 2000 years removed from the ancient Jewish culture which gave birth to the Christian faith."
The real problem is that the Roman Catholic Church has derived its dogma from extra-biblical apocryphal sources. See this article for more details:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-spurious-origin-of-marys-perpetual.html
The following excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia is also helpful here:
"In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin. "The world was created to produce life; He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18; Giṭ. iv. 5 = 'Eduy. i. 13). "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. i. 28) is taken as a command; marriage with a view to that end is a duty incumbent upon every male adult (according to some the duty devolves also upon woman; Yeb. vi. 8; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xv.; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 13)...Abstention from marital intercourse on the part of the husband exceeding a legitimate limit, which varies with the different occupations, may be taken by the wife as ground for a divorce (Ket. v. 6, 7). A single man who is past twenty may be compelled by the court to marry (Shulḥan 'Aruk, l.c. i. 3)."
"[in response to Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4] Only if you follow the traditions of men which Protestants believe. However, Tradition and Scripture tell us that Jesus was an only child. Therefore, any use of the word "adelphoi" must be in the general sense that we use the word "brother" today. As in good friend, cousin, church companion, and many other senses."
ReplyDeleteNowhere does Scripture expressly state that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Never in Scripture do we see the Angel Gabriel or some other messenger sent by God to tell Joseph that he was not to consummate his marriage. The basis for Mary's perpetual virginity is uninspired legends and unreasonable inferences that go far beyond Scripture.
Adelphoi does not always mean physical brothers. Nonetheless, the New Testament does not use the Greek word to mean cousin. The context of these passages demands that we understand the brothers and sisters to mean blood relatives. British Methodist theologian and scholar Adam Clarke said the following in his commentary on Matthew 13:55:
"Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?"
If a person wants to argue that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are from a previous marriage, then one question that needs to be answered is why they were nowhere mentioned during the escape to and return from Egypt (Matthew 2). The context only presents Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus. Why were the relatives not mentioned when Joseph traveled with Mary to Bethlehem for the census (Luke 2)?
"And the writer knew that Catholics would understand the true meaning of the word. And if they didn't, they have an infallible Teacher to correct them."
The point being stressed here is that the New Testament uses language in such a precise fashion that the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is rendered unlikely. Why would the Holy Spirit move people to write in a way that contradicts our common sense? If the inspired writers of the New Testament actually believed this dogma, then why did they not forthrightly proclaim it as truth?
"[In response to Matthew 1:24-25] The entire idea presented there is "knew her not". This is a perfect example of you treating ancient Jewish speech patterns the same as modern English. But you assume too much. heos hou, or "until", was used differently by Jews than by modern English speakers. So, let's look at the Scripture. Matthew "knew her not until". To, English speakers, that means that Matthew did not know her until a certain point in time and then he did. But to an ancient Jew, that isn't the case. Let me give you an example (2 Samuel 6:23)."
As an answer to the above quibbles, this excerpt from a paper by Wayne Jackson has been cited:
"Matthew declares that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “until [heos hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25).While the expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1.42).There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception."
"Even that doesn't show a change of status after the wedding day, if read in the culture of the ancient Jews."
ReplyDeleteRelations between marital partners is seen as normal in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:22-24). According to Jewish law, one could not be considered married without consummation. Celibacy was not the norm, except among certain members of the Essenes. Sexual relations are a part of God's design for marriage. It is a measure that brings about sanctity and honor (Hebrews 13:4).
"[In response to Matthew 1:18] Again, since Catholics have always knows that they never came together sexually, then we know that there must be an alternate meaning. That meaning must be "before they came together in one household."
Matthew 1 speaks of being betrothed but not yet having slept together. The details provided by the gospel narratives strongly indicate normal marital relations between Mary and Joseph.
"[In response to Psalm 69:8-9] Lol! Really? That is a prophet saying that he has alienated himself from the entire nation of Israel. Have you ever heard that Israel killed the prophets. Come on."
Psalm 69 is obviously messianic in nature, although not every detail is pertinent to Jesus Christ. Psalm 69:8 was quoted in John 7:3-5. Psalm 69:9 was quoted in John 2:17. Psalm 69:21 was quoted in Matthew 27:34. Psalm 69:25 was quoted in Matthew 23:38. Reading the context of Psalm 69 gives us the imagery of one being alienated. That is exactly what has been reported in the gospel accounts regarding Christ. The text is a problem for the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity because it refers to "my brothers" and "my mother's sons."
"[Responding to Luke 2:7] Read about Jewish culture. It would do you a world of good. Ok, let's see. OT Jews were polygamous. Let's say that Jew#1 had two wives. One of them had the Firstborn son and that's all. The other had the rest of the children. All boys. The Firstborn would receive double the inheritance of the other boys. That's all. It doesn't mean that wife #1 had any more children. Jesus was Mary's first and only son."
We are not given any indication that 1.) most Jews were polygamous, 2.) that Joseph was polygamous, or even 3.) that Joseph could afford to have multiple wives. Even if any of these points are true, they are beside the point and incidental.
"[Responding to the question of how marriage consummation would defile Mary] One of the main reasons is that we know that Joseph was a righteous man. In Scripture, righteous men do not have sexual relations with other men's wives. Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit had brought about the birth of Christ. And that means that Mary had become the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph would not dare come to know her physically."
Scripture never affirms or even hints at the idea that the Holy Spirit "married" Mary or she became His spiritual wife. That is a man-made concept. The Holy Spirit is not like a Roman or Greek god who has sexual relations with a human being and a god-man is born. The Holy Spirit is not physical. Mary was simply "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit. His divine power created the physical body of Jesus Christ in her womb.
"[In Response to John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, and Galatians 1:18-19] In all those passages, the context shows that they were either some other relative or close friends, but in context with the Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ, we know that they were not the children of Mary."
There is simply no valid reason to dogmatically assert that the siblings of Jesus were cousins or from some previous marriage. Those theories are bereft of a truthful foundation.