Jump to content

Bede

Male Catholic Married

My Details

Last visited
Relationship StatusMarried
DenominationCatholic
GenderMale
  • Content Count

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Bede last won the day on January 19 2018

Bede had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Bede

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile

  • Denomination
    Catholic
  • Gender
    Male
  • Relationship Status
    Married

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jesus is not the genetic child of Joseph. If Clopas was the brother of Joseph (as Hegesippus claims) then any of his children are not genetically related to Jesus. However they are related in a legal sense since Clopas would be Mary's brother-in-law. Whether that counts technically as cousins I do not know. The problem with all this is we do not know enough and can endlessly speculate. For example, since Joseph is not mentioned as living after the incident with the boy Jesus in the Temple, many suggest that Joseph died well before Jesus was a man. What happened to Mary and Jesus? Did Clopas look after them? Did another relative look after them? Did someone not related in the village look after them? In all these cases children growing up together could considered brothers and sisters. Let me summarise a bit. Catholics (and Orthodox) claim that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is scriptural evidence for that but no explicit statement to that effect. Opponents of this claim that Mary did not remain a virgin but had other children. There is scriptural evidence for that but no explicit statement. Catholics try to provide the evidence for their proposal but no-one is interested and the opponents just want to provide the opposing evidence to disprove those silly Catholics (Orthodox are not silly - they are just forgotten about). Catholics end up spending their time debunking these claims and the argument goes on and on. It end up in stalemate and most give up until the next time (a few stalwarts soldier on for a while). I think I'm reaching the stalemate phase.
  2. Origen you say: "Provide evidence from scholarly sources for this claim." Well we could ask the same of you. You may have studied a lot but we have no way of knowing whether you a right or not. I have looked at many Bibles and all translate heos in Mt 1:25 as until or til. It would seem, according to you, that all those expert translators used the wrong word in this context. As I mentioned before I have been told by a Greek speaking Orthodox that heos does not carry implications beyond the point that heos refers to. . I disagree.We cannot always prove something absolutely. We can give evidence and may have to make judgements on that evidence. There is no proof that the "brothers" of Jesus are Mary's children. We just have to provide the evidence and then make a judgement.
  3. I've noticed that I failed to respond to this such has been the flurry of posts! My apologies - it wasn't intentional As with many issues it is a matter of judgement and what evidence there is. Since the angel has been speaking to Mary about the future it seems to me very likely that her response was also concerning the future. Also, as I suggested, as Mary was betrothed to Joseph and in the normal expectations of marriage would have entered into sexual relations, the promise of a future child should not have raised any questions. It would be pretty obvious as to "how can this be?". The raising of a question would therefore indicate that having a sexual relationship with Joseph was not her expectation. Hence her question addresses that future.
  4. Well you are the one that wanted those topics addressed. Can I take your non-answer to mean you agree with them?
  5. I think they are more likely to be the children of Mary, wife of Clopas. There is both scriptural and non-scriptural support for that.
  6. It was Diego that claimed they were children of Joseph. But it is a possibility - see my previous post. Personally I go with the other suggestions I posted.
  7. They wouldn't be random strangers. I agree there must be some kind of relationship between Jesus and these "brothers". But to claim they are Mary's children is just not in the text.
  8. The Bible doesn't plainly teach they had children other than Jesus. Nowhere does it say that Mary had other children. My comment, and post #34 was to show that the word adelphos (brothers) had very wide usage and was not reserved only for blood brothers. There are several possibilities for these brothers to be part of Mary & Joseph's extended family. I think Diego has already show some.
  9. See post #34 Also if a man with children marries a woman with children the various children will be considered as brothers and sisters even with no genetic relationship whatever.
  10. And what precisely are you claiming that it means? Perhaps that will answer my previous post.
  11. What I'm confused about is the point you are making in post #38, and to whom. Are you agreeing that the verse in question says nothing about whether Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse after the birth of Jesus? Or are you suggesting that it does indicate that they did?
  12. If by your point you mean post #38 then could you clarify it because I find it confusing.
  13. Exactly! Adelphos According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows: There is are many possibilities for who these "brothers" were.
  14. Doesn't say that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph and doesn't say that these "brothers" and "sisters" were children of Mary. But could you hold the objections until we've discussed to evidence for? Otherwise it gets very complicated. Thanks (in hopeful anticipation :))
  15. There are six scripture based arguments for Mary being ever-virgin. Let's look at them one at a time Here is the first one: The Annunciation In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.” Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:26-38) Let’s look at this carefully, especially the phrases I have emboldened. 1. Mary is married to Joseph. The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages. After the first stage they are married, but later (usually a year) the second stage occurred; the bride entered the bridegroom’s house and the marriage was consummated. In a normal marriage, during the first stage, the bride was not just hoping or expecting the second stage but was committed to it. She was committed to sexual intercourse and would have the expectation (or at least hope) that it would be followed by a child. 2. The angel tells her she will conceive - some unspecified time in the future He does not say you have conceived but will conceive. He is pointing to the future but gives no timescale. This would normally be good news, especially a son, but would be assumed to follow on from the second stage of marriage. 3. But Mary asks a strange question. “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” In normal circumstances this would a silly question, so this indicates that this is not a normal marriage; that she has no expectation of sexual relations with Joseph. Note that at this stage the angel has not told Mary she will conceive by the Holy Spirit not Joseph. Her question therefore only makes sense if she intended not to consummate the marriage; if she had committed her life to the Lord as a virgin. An analogy is with someone who does not smoke. If someone prophesied they would die of lung cancer they might say “How can this be since I do not smoke?” The implication is clearly that this condition of not smoking (and in Mary’s case her virginity) is expected to remain unchanged. Note Mary says I have no relations with a man (present tense). But I contend she is referring to the future as well. The angel has focussed on the future and so Mary’s reply must address the future as well. Take the example above: someone says you will die of lung cancer. You reply “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Obviously if I expect to start smoking I can expect the possibility of contracting lung cancer at some time in the future. My question of “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Only makes sense if I do not expect to start smoking in the future. The “I do not smoke” is therefore not only something for the present but looks to the future as well; it implies something about the continuance of my not smoking. So too with Mary. Her reply only makes sense if it implies she intends to continue not to have a sexual relationship. This use of the present tense implying the future is used in other places in the New Testament. Mt 26:18 I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples. The verb is actually in the present tense, literally “I am holding the Passover with the disciples of me.” Blass and Debrunner in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature say 'in confident assertions regarding the future a vivid realistic present may be used for the future’ (Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by R. W. Funk, Chicago and Longon, 1961, p. 168, & 323) John McHugh in 'The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament' says I would suggest that in Lk 1:34 the present tense is employed with the force of a future……. Thus the most accurate translation of Lk 1:34 would be 'How shall this be since I am not to know a man?' Note for Origen: Both the above two quotes are from an article by a Catholic apologist. I don't have the actual books myself. The Protoevangelium of James (not scriptural) tells how Mary was dedicated to God at an early age. This fits with Mary’s intention to remain a virgin.
×
×
  • Create New...