Joshua, I don’t think you have read carefully what I have so far said. If you had, you would know my answers to these questions.
And yet you seem either unable and/or unwilling direct answers to the specific questions I have asked. Why is this?
David McKay - 28 August 2008 01:59 AM
The answer to both questions should be the same for a person of either sex [and note that I didn’t say “gender"].
Irrelevant to the questions I have asked.
David McKay - 28 August 2008 01:59 AM
Of course it is wrong for a man to force himself on his wife!
This wasn’t my question.
To expand upon my second question, a woman hears in church that it is sinful not to make herself sexually available to her husband, without qualification. Reluctant to have sex, but concerned that she would be sinning if she behaved otherwise, she lets her husband know that while she doesn’t really want to have sex, she’ll have sex regardless if he so wishes. Now, so you don’t miss the question, “Would it be sinful for a husband to have sex with his wife, knowing that she does not wish to have sex?”
David McKay - 28 August 2008 01:59 AM
Your first question is rather loaded, I think. I don’t think I’d like to make a pronouncement, but I’m sure that the answer would apply equally to men and women and would depend on circumstances.
In what sense is the question loaded?
I’m not sure whether you don’t wish to make a pronouncement because you don’t know the answer, or because the answer you wish to give would appear insensitive, but neither of these considerations makes my question loaded.
Robert ian Williams sent me a PM with the details of a talk by a Roman Catholic apologist named Tim Staples where he argues that Jesus had no siblings (i.e. to support the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity). As this seeks to answer a question I had raised publicly - not privately - I have posted here verbatim my reply to Robert, along with three of the key texts from the ESV:
Matt 13:55-56
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? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Matt 27:55-56
55 There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
John 19:25
25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Robert,
The section of the talk dealing with this issue is actually at about 46 minutes in. At this point, Tim Staples makes a very tenuous and unconvincing argument.
He contends that the Mary mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (explicitly as the mother of Jesus, with four brothers of Jesus named - James, Joseph, Simon and Judas) is the same Mary of 27:56 (who is referenced in terms of two sons who have the same names as two of the four brothers of Jesus, i.e. James and Joseph), which I agree is quite plausible but by no means a certainty. I would expect Matthew would make the more definitive clarification of “Mary the mother of Jesus” in Matt 27:56 if that was who “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” was.
He then makes the unwarranted leap of claiming that this “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” is actually Mary of Clopas, where Matthew never makes this distinction. It is actually verging on being a deliberate attempt to misinform, as he says, quote, “if you go ... to Matthew 27:56, you find that two of those brothers, James and Joseph, are mentioned again, but this time their mother is named. And their mother is named Mary of Cleopas.” This is patently misleading, as the text of Matthew 27:56 makes absolutely no reference to the name Clopas.
Mary of Clopas is only named in John 19:25, where the inference is that “of Clopas” means “wife of Clopas”, although the ambiguity of the Greek could permit the reading “daughter of Clopas”. In John 19:25, Mary of Clopas is not referenced by any children. So we don’t know for sure if Mary of Clopas was married, or if she was married whether she had any children, or if she was married and did have children what their names were. Without any further substantiation, Tim Staples declares that “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” of Matt 27:56 (and by extension of Matt 13:55) is actually “Mary of Clopas” of John 19:25, without offering any evidence as to why this should be the case.
The clincher for me is that Tim Staples does not even try to suggest how the clear inference of Matt 13:55-56 - that Jesus had a mother named Mary, brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas and at least two unnamed sisters - could not be read from the logical progression of Jesus’ family relationships in this verse. That is, the question is first raised, “is this not the carpenter’s son?” clearly referring to Jesus’ father, Joseph. The next question is about his mother, named as Mary. The next question is about his four brothers, who are named, and the last question is about his sisters, unnamed.
So the progression of questions about Jesus’ identity in light of his family relationships goes: father - mother - brothers - sisters. He does not even try to establish why this text should not be read in its plainest sense when its internal structure so compellingly argues for a parent and sibling reading. Instead, tenuous and virtually fabricated claims need to be invoked to try and deny that Jesus had any siblings - or more directly, that Mary remained a virgin after marriage.
Tim Staples also does his argument no favours by insisting that at the time that Mary is visited by the angel Gabriel she is already married, whereas Luke 1:27 uses the Greek term for engaged or betrothed, but not the term for married.
All of this still dodges the main thrust of the question I must have raised at least six times now - would it be a problem if Mary and Joseph did have sex after they were married? Even if you have already decided that they didn’t, Robert, why not tackle it as a hypothetical question to clarify why it could not be so?
Robert ian Williams sent me another PM in reply to the answer I provided above. Again, as this seeks to answer a question I had raised publicly - not privately - I have posted here verbatim my reply to Robert, along with Robert’s response to me.
Robert ian Williams -
Timbo,
Thank you for taking the time to listen and a most thoughtful reply. However I will go with the Church,as my reading of history, tradition and Scripture may be wrong...Robert
Indeed - as may my reading, or Tim Staples’ reading. So, on the evidence Tim Staples put forward and my criticisms of that evidence, and without relying on anyone’s reputation and only dealing with the scriptures that are under discussion, which do you think is the more correct interpretation? That is, can you give any reasons why Tim Staples’ interpretation should be accorded any favour given the shortcomings I have outlined? Or, more to the point, can you engage with the substance of my objections rather than just say, “Oh well, the Roman Catholic church is never wrong anyway, so I don’t need to think any further about it.”
But Timbo..betroathed in the Jewish context is not like our modern engageemnt..why would Joseph need a divorce...think about it.... Mary did not give birth outside of marriage covenant under the Law of Moses. An illegitimate Jesus would have not fulfilled the law perfectly.
Agreed, it is not like our modern idea of engagement, but neither is it the same as being married - otherwise, why would a Greek term be used in Luke 1:27 that is not the same as that for married (i.e. Luke 1:27 does not use a variant of the Greek word “gameow")?
As regards the reference to Matthew 1:18-20, yes, it does say in our English translations that Joseph resolved to “divorce” her whle they were betrothed (again emphasised by the use of “mnesteutheises”, meaning “had been betrothed” in v.18), but the Greek word used in v.19 for divorce is “apolusai”, which literally means to set free, or to dismiss, or to send away. In other words, it was Joseph’s resolve to dismiss the betrothal arrangement. Just as you correctly point out that the “engagement” (as it is translated in English) is not our modern version of engagement, the “divorce” (as it is translated in English) is not our modern version of divorce - which we understand to apply only after marriage, not before, due to the much looser view of engagement that we take nowadays.
The proof of this in what the angel says to Joseph in v.20; “Joseph, do not fear to take Mary as your wife.” In other words, “do not worry about doing what you had previously planned to do,” or, “go ahead with your betrothal arrangement and get married to Mary.” In the angel’s mind, Joseph is not yet married to Mary, but needs to go ahead with his betrothal plan to marry her in the future. Joseph has not taken Mary as his wife yet, otherwise the angel would have said something along the lines of, “do not fear to keep Mary as your wife.” Can I gently suggest that you read the proof texts you supply in their context, not in isolation, in order to discern their most likely meaning?
Your claim about Jesus being illegitimate puzzles me; Joseph would never be Jesus’ true father, whether he was conceived pre or post marriage, as he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Since Jospeh was not Jesus’ conceptual father, it would make no difference whether Jesus was conceived before or after they were married, except that in order for the prophecy of Isaiah to be fulfilled it would need to be before they had sex (which for most couples would be as soon as they were married). What aspect of the law do you believe Jesus would not have been able to fulfil perfectly if he was conceived before Mary and Joseph were married?
And, as always, still awaiting an answer on why there would have been a problem with Joseh and Mary having sex after they were married and Jesus was at least conceived and certainly once he was born.
Responding to your earlier post:
1. I don’t think Paul is promoting sexual rights over each other. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Are you suggesting that a husband or wife can demand their sexual needs over the other because of verse 4? All sorts of strange sects have developed over the reading of that verse out of context. If we read the whole of chapter 7 of 1 Cor Paul is promoting virginity as the better way. He even goes to say that “..you will have trouble in this life..” if you marry (v28). And Paul also agrees with the Catholic Church when he says we are bound to our husband until he dies. But in his opinion, it is better to remain widowed. In Matthew Chapter 5 we also see how divorce and remarriage is considered unlawful. Protestants try to use verse 32 as proving divorce and remarriage are ok under certain circumstances. They fail, however, to read the chapter in context and a generall tolerance for divorce and remarriage has prevailed throughout the protestant church. I know of several divorced and re-marriage couples within various protestant churches, and the circumstances of the divorce are not even an issue for the minister. It is just accepted as ok to remarry. When I have put to protestants that divorce and remarriage are forbidden in the bible, they say “Oh, Paul says it’s ok to remarry if the partner has committed a sin against the marriage “
2. I was going to mention the issue of Mary and Joseph being married when the Angel appeared to her, but I can see this has been raised. An early writing of James (the Protevangelium) is an interesting read on this matter and confirms that Mary made a vow of chastity from an early age. This could back up what Tim Staples had to say which you seem to think is deliberately fabricated. Origen mentions these writings in his commentary on Matthew 2:17 (AD248). So to answer your question “do you have an objection per se Mary having sex with Joseph…” – the answer is ‘yes’. Mary would have broken her vow of chastity. The question to you Tim is “why have you chosen a modernist view of the issue, considering your forefathers in the protestant faith read the texts quite differently to you ?” How come the belated insight?
3. I am not sure what your comment means – “..I find your argument against the certainty of Jesus having biological siblings…seems at odds with your willingness to suggest as certainties ideas that can only be implied from a verse (eg Matt12:32). I have never used an isolated verse to support any position I have held. Perhaps you have not read all my posts regarding the issue of purgatory. The fact that protestants discard the book of Maccabees impedes your understanding of how the Hebrews understood Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Even if protestants deny the Book of Maccabees as canonical, it is, nevertheless, a witness to the belief in a place where we are purged of any impurities. Jews still today practice the offering of prayers for the dead - kiddish. Why didn’t Jesus condemn such a belief? In fact, Jesus said He came not to abolish the old law but to fulfil it. I think I also quoted 1Cor 3:13-15 where Paul talks about each man’s WORK being tested with fire. In verse 15 he says: “If any man’s work is burned up, he shalll suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire”. Where is your work tested Tim? Phil 1:6 “that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. If when we die, as protestants believe, there is nothing left to be done, then why does Paul say that a perfection will take place after death. These verses don’t explicitly say purgatory (latin), but nor does the bible say trinity but we all agree on the trinity. Perhaps the silence speaks loudly. The NT church knew exactly what Paul was talking about. These texts also gives weight to the Catholic position on salvation. If we don’t have to do anything, then why does Paul say our ‘work’ will be tested. If we just have to believe, then Paul must have been having a bad day
cont.
4. Now to the word brother. I am not sure if the verses you quoted in your reply to Robert are there supporting your claim or not. Matt 13, I assume is used to support your position. It still is not explicit that these brothers/sisters were blood relations. These ‘siblings’ could well be children of Joseph by a previous marriage. I don’t think Tim Staples has deliberately mislead. I think his comment probably comes from the following conclusion:
James, the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Madgalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt 27:56) “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40)
Then John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). We see from these parallel accounts that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. The Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Early Church writings (Hegesippus) suggests that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, thus James would be Jesus’ cousin. In any case, I think it demonstrates that these were not Mary’s children. Nowhere does the NT say that any of Jesus’ brothers were Mary’s sons, as it does, for instance, for Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.
Let’s look at it another way. If Mary had had children other than Jesus, wouldn’t those siblings be correcting the early Church that their teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity was false? If Mary had had children other than Jesus, then how would Jesus appear to the people of that time? He would not be anything special. His conception by the action of the Holy Spirit would be disbelieved and people would assume that Joseph was the father. This would be the perfect opportunity for disbelievers to preach against the virgin birth. The fact that Mary remained a virgin gave weight to Jesus’ virgin birth. On the other hand if Jesus were an only child, his supernatural conception would be more likely to be believed. His miraculous birth would be more plausible. Even in the accounts of the finding of Jesus in the temple, there is no account of children of Mary and Joseph, even though they were searching for Jesus for three days. It would be strange for siblings not to be involved in the search party, don’t you think?.
Why would Jesus entrust his mother to John if he had ‘brothers’? That would be unthinkable! Jesus is always referred to as the Son of Mary not a son of Mary.
Considering those ‘siblings’ would have had the privilege of first-hand knowledge of the person of Jesus, why not any writings or insights from any of these siblings?
Absolutely nothing in the history of the Church to give insight into the life of Jesus
The NT texts imply that the ‘brothers’ of Jesus were older. For example, (John 7:3-4) the ‘brethren’ are advising him that Galilee was no place for him etc. It would be unusual, in the context of their society (or even in our society today) for a younger sibling to be giving advice to an older sibling. I would expect that Jesus would choose his ‘brothers’. I’m sure Jesus wasn’t averse to a little nepotism. And what about their standing in the early Church. None became bishops, priests etc. Why weren’t they at the foot of the cross? In my reading of the early Church fathers, I can see no reference to them made. I have writings from the Didache right up to St John Damascene in the 8th century. Surely you must see that this is important. Do you really think that Jesus would say the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and then allow more than 1700years of false teaching? (Not sure when the practised belief in Mary having other children began. My understanding is that it has only been actively believed in the last couple hundred years). To believe that an error of such high proportion was allowed to perpetuate without any serious question made to it, is not to take Christ seriously.
Protestants also use Mark 6:3 to prove that Jesus had natural brothers. Firstly, James, Joses, Juda and Simon are called the brothers of Jesus, not the sons of Mary. So this does not explicitly rule out the virginity of Mary. The ‘brothers’ of Jesus could have been cousins or his brothers by adoption (Joseph may have been a widower and fathered those children). The bible is not explicit on this.
Even Calvin concludes that “under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity” (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec 39 Vol 1 from Calvin’s Commentaries). In fact, all the so-called ‘reformers’ agreed that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
cont.
The word brother is used extensively in the bible. You seem to think it is meant as literal blood brother. Let’s have a look:
Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen 14:14) even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen 11:26-28) he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren”, the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr 23:21-22).
The terms “brothers, brother or sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut 23:7; Neh 5:7; Jer 34:9) as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14
There is no word for cousin in Aramaic, so we have a translation problem in the first instance. To address the word ‘suggenes’ - in the latest NAB version, the translation has been corrected to translate ‘relative’. Suggenes is a general term as well, so it does not exclusively mean cousin.
This was a special family, so special sacrifices were made in order for the proper nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to a marriage than that
David, how often do cousins come up in the NT? Apart from this disputed case, the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth is the only one that comes to mind. It’s not really a statistically relevant sample!
I’m remember reading a defence of the doctrine by Jerome, which can be accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html . Let me know what you make of it.
Thank you for your extensive and well thought-out reply, taking care to refer to verses and quote sources (Robert ian Williams, take note!)
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
Tim
Responding to your earlier post:
1. I don’t think Paul is promoting sexual rights over each other. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Are you suggesting that a husband or wife can demand their sexual needs over the other because of verse 4?
I don’t think Paul is promoting sexual rights over each other, either. Rather, he is teaching what our sexual responsibilities are to our spouses. I am certainly not suggesting that a husband or wife can demand their sexual needs over the other because of verse 4. Rather, I am suggesting that verses 4 and 5 teaches that a husband or wife must take seriously their responsibility to be sexually available for thier spouse, and that there is very little ground for abstaining from sexual relationships within marriage - abstaining for prayer is the exception, and only for a short time. So how would you expect these verses to apply to Mary and Joseph?
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
If we read the whole of chapter 7 of 1 Cor Paul is promoting virginity as the better way.
I think it would be more correct to say he is promoting singleness as the better way. He is certainly not advocating virginity within marriage (given verses 4-5) - do you agree?
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
2. I was going to mention the issue of Mary and Joseph being married when the Angel appeared to her, but I can see this has been raised. An early writing of James (the Protevangelium) is an interesting read on this matter and confirms that Mary made a vow of chastity from an early age.
The Protevangelium is a controversial document, to say the least. The earliest surviving manuscript only dates from the third century (i.e. circa 200+ AD), and its earliest reliable estimate of writing is 140 - 170 AD. Given that the author claims to be James, the stepbrother of Jesus, and this same James died at the hands of Ananais in AD 62, it is extremely unlikely that it was actually written by James.
The fact that it was not accounted as canonical even though it was clearly available and widely distributed by the time of the later councils suggests it is not a reliable source. It also contradicts the canonical gospels in claiming that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem. In terms of content, it contains accounts such as Mary’s mother transforming the infant Mary’s bedroom into a sanctuary where she receives no impure food and is amused by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews. When she turns three years of age, these young women escort her to the temple in Jerusalem where she spends the next nine years in absolute purity and is even fed by the hand of an angel.
Forgive me for my cynicism, but these astounding events that are uncorroborated by any of the canonical NT books or prophesied by any of the canonical OT books strike me as fanciful fabrications that the councils rightly saw as unworthy of inclusion in the canon of Scripture. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I will not accord any veracity to any claims made in this document that are not corroborated by more trustworthy documents, such as the scriptures.
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
This could back up what Tim Staples had to say which you seem to think is deliberately fabricated.
Except that he still says Matthew 27:56 names the second Mary (i.e. not Magdalene) as Mary of Clopas, when the text makes no mention whatsoever of Clopas. I still stand by the claim that this is deliberate misrepresentation of the text - but more on the vexed question of the many Marys in my next post.
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
Origen mentions these writings in his commentary on Matthew 2:17 (AD248).
And what did he say?
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
So to answer your question “do you have an objection per se Mary having sex with Joseph…” – the answer is ‘yes’. Mary would have broken her vow of chastity.
OK, given that you believe that the Protevangelium is an authoritive writing, you have answered my question - thank you for that! I would strongly counsel you, however, to look a little more critically at the veracity of the Protoevangelium, and ask yourself, “If the Roman Catholic Church does not account this writing as canonical, how can it rely on (at least some of) its content as the basis for its doctrine, which it says it received directly from the Apostles?”
Donna Green - 03 September 2008 04:11 PM
The question to you Tim is “why have you chosen a modernist view of the issue, considering your forefathers in the protestant faith read the texts quite differently to you ?” How come the belated insight?
Well, for me it’s not a belated insight, as it is never one I did not hold from my earliest faith - which came about through reading the Bible, not the writings of my “forefathers in the protestant faith”. So, to me it’s not a modernist view, but one that is in accord with the earliest and most reliable wiritngs - that is, the Bible. Given the later (and quite possibly fabricated - i.e. not written by who it claims to be) authorship of the Protevangelium, I tend to think the Protevangelium is a modernist and revionist view that my true forefathers of the faith (i.e. the Apostles) would have rejected, had they lived to see its creation.
I will continue addressing your other points in the near future.
I don’t think Paul is promoting sexual rights over each other, either. Rather, he is teaching what our sexual responsibilities are to our spouses. I am certainly not suggesting that a husband or wife can demand their sexual needs over the other because of verse 4. Rather, I am suggesting that verses 4 and 5 teaches that a husband or wife must take seriously their responsibility to be sexually available for thier spouse, and that there is very little ground for abstaining from sexual relationships within marriage - abstaining for prayer is the exception, and only for a short time. So how would you expect these verses to apply to Mary and Joseph?
If you apply your logic i.e. Paul tells us not to withhold from each other and then apply that verse to Mary and Joseph to prove that they had sexual relations, then you must also apply the logic that Paul says it is better not to marry so we can concentrate on the Lord more. Paul is not speaking doctrinally.
You also stated: “I think it would be more correct to say he is promoting singleness as the better way. He is certainly not advocating virginity within marriage (given verses 4-5) - do you agree?”
Tim, semantics here. In fact, singleness does not equate to virginity. Look at the role virgins (celibates) have in Rev 14:4. I did not suggest that Paul was promoting virginity within marriage. I have only used this as the case for Mary and Joseph.
In response to the protevangelium, I never claimed that this was an authoritative writing. So you are very presumptuous here Tim. Be careful not to claim a position for me that I do not hold myself. You not only have to reject the protevangelium but also the early writings of the Church, because they, by the most part, disagree with your interpretation of the bible. In any case, I will provide quotes as you have requested:
Justin Martyr:
Some writer that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah (Mary) the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man.
-Writing of Justin Martyr, circa 150 A.D. as represented by Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177.
Hegissipus
Writes that Jacob (i.e. James) and Simon, so-called Jesus’ brothers, were Clopas’ sons, whereas Clopas was “Joseph’s brother, as Hegissipus tells us” (I.E. III, 11, 1).
-The writings of Hegissipus, circa A.D. 180, as represented by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2, 23 and 4, 8. 22.
Clement of Alexandria:
Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord’s] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being Joseph’s [son].
-Hypotyposeis, circa 200 AD, as represented by Cassiodorus.
Origen:
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?”
-Commentary on John 1:6, A.D. 232.
It is talked over by many, how it happened that Jesus had these brothers, since Mariah stayed a virgin till her death. He did not have flesh brothers, nor were any born by the Virgin, nor Himself was He born from Joseph. They were called brothers of His in the law, being sons of Joseph before his wife died.
- Commentary on John 2:11, A.D. 232.
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity.
-Commentary on Matthew 2:17, A.D. 248.
Finally, you have not, in all honesty, come to the conclusion that Mary gave birth to other children from your own reading of the bible. You come to it with preconceived ideas. History tells us that the Church from the earliest times believed Mary to be a perpetual virgin. Don’t forget Tim, the bible never says the bible alone.
Hi Donna
Can you give us some NT instances of ADELFOS being used for a cousin, etc?
The Old Testament references are not very compelling for your case.
Why David? Doesn’t the OT hold any weight for you? I have shown that the word brother does not always refer to blood brother, which supported the point I was making. Is there a rule that you must have a certain number of OT text along with a certain number of NT texts to prove a position you hold?
In essence, you are just saying I’m wrong. I’ve given a comprehensive response. If you wish to disagree, do so with something worth debating over.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
