Posted on 09/21/2013 3:07:58 PM PDT by NYer
Sure it does ... or rather, "how NOT." A silly premise makes the rest of the question pointless.
Naw...There is scripture that overwhelmingly shows Jesus had brothers and sisters...There is no scripture even hinting that Mary never had more children...
What is pointless is go on to any further estimation when scripture paints such a clear picture...
“A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.”. (Mark 6:3,4)
But this is the evils of religion,the Church starts a man made doctrine, such as so many hail Marys, so many our fathers, collecting tithes for a Government that no longer exists, trying to Change the 7th day Sabbath to a 1st day Sabbath.
And here we are trying to teach each each other on matters that don,t amount to a hill of beans.
I think it is curious that the actual question is being avoided here. It is far from a "silly premise" since the question of Mary having other children after Jesus is NOT settled - even to this day. It isn't a black or white conclusion and, instead, has many Biblical evidences for the affirmative. Those who refuse to consider the possibility do so because it WILL affect their ultimate view of the mother of Jesus. That was the point of my hypothetical. You have answered it whether you know it or not. Thank you.
Perhaps I was unclear. The “silly premise” to which I referred is the contention that it could be “shown” - that is, proved by scientific experiment or incontestible historical data - whether Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus.
I’m sure you realize that the references to Jesus’s “brothers and sisters” in the Gospel do not name the parents of those people, and so the only obvious historical source provides no information on the question.
Yet, we do NOT have "uncontested" historical data on that subject, do we? The references we have in Scripture indirectly name the parents of the brothers and sisters of Jesus as Joseph, the carpenter, and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Used in the manner that they were implies that these were Jesus' familial siblings and not cousins or just kinfolk, as some want to insist it does.
I have asked several times now to just assume that it could be proved incontrovertibly that Mary was not a "perpetual virgin" and to explain if and how this knowledge would or should affect the views of her. Are you unable or unwilling to address this question? It was asked seriously and not as any kind of "gotcha". It boils down to whether the honor and respect that Mary is given within Christianity is based on truth or wishful thinking. My respect for her is not at all diminished by her having a normal marriage that produced other children. If it does with others, then they should just admit it and not hem and haw around the question.
Another way to say "indirectly name" is "do not name." Scripture (2 Kings) names David as the father of Hezekiah, directly, and yet, David was not Hezekiah's immediate male progenitor at all, but an ancestor many generations preceding.
This is to say, we're back to really not having the information, if we read Scripture.
I never should have taken that logic class: it made me impossible.
Nonetheless, having a lot of Charlie Brown in me, I’ll say that reverence for Mary is unique in that it is always related to who her Son is, while respect for my mother, for example, is because of who she is as an individual. OldTax-lady stands on her own, regardless of her children, while Mary always stands in relationship to Jesus.
Why can’t you answer the question?
Thank you.
Because I’m a raging pain. Just ask my family!
Naw...I think your family adores you just as you adore them. Take care!
Thanks!
I was not answering the question at first because I couldn’t bring myself to affirm even theoretically an impossibility. (That logic class ...)
However, I also was having difficulty finding the words to convey the purpose or “high-concept” of Catholic beliefs regarding Mary. Mary’s lifelong virginity is not just an “unknowable apart from revelation” fact, like her exact hair color, height, or age. It’s part of a integrated network of beliefs, all of which have their origin in and correspond to our beliefs about the nature and absolute uniqueness of the eternal Son of God who is also the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. One very quickly jumps from strict narrative to poetry, because Christ is a reality unattainable to unaided human rationality!
If you’re interested in the Big Picture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is, of course, a rock-solid source, while Scott Hahn’s “Hail, Holy Queen” is a popular and very accessible compendium.
The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother.
After listing a few Old Testament verses where a broader meaning than strictly “brother” is in view, Bauer noted that such passages “do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for adelphos; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‘ach, adelphos is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masculine relatives of various degrees” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 15, emp. added). In other words, no linguistic justification exists to support the notion that adelphoi could refer to the “cousins” of Jesus. The Septuagint translators employed adelphos for ‘ach in those passages where additional contextual evidence clarified the intended meaning. No such contextual evidence exists in the allusions to Jesus’ brothers in the New Testament, and is therefore an irrelevant comparison.
When we come to the New Testament, where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek”
Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother”
Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of Mary. But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary with Joseph? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces at all while omitting other extended family relatives? As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary, why are they always associated with her and not with their mother?
The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.