Posted on 06/13/2018 7:22:36 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
When Catholics call Mary the "Blessed Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as "virgin," they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister."
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, 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).
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Still trying to push the narrative that Mary had no children after Jesus. Wrong.
Was John the Apostle her biological son?
Nope. But James was.
In the ‘hood men shout out out the greeting “bro’” to perfect strangers.
Fraternity members consider themselves to be non sibling brothers, indeed the word frater means brother in Latin.
My point? It is a universal tendency for men to refer to each other as brothers even when they are not siblings.
When scripture talks about brothers they are often not related by blood.
Then why wasn’t James with his “mother” at the foot of the cross?
Regardless of the interpretation of “brethren,” which is important, I’d like my Roman Catholic friends to consider that if Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage then they weren’t really married.
And if the one was denying sex to the other, either way, they were actually sinning.
Ask him yourself. Neither James nor Jude were there, and they were Mary’s children. Both apparently did not want to be associated with their heretical older brother. Jesus could trust John with Mary’s care and passed the elder duties on to him.
“I’d like my Roman Catholic friends to consider that if Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage then they weren’t really married.”
Exactly. Their marriage would have been fraudulent.
Biblically, Mary fulfilled prophecy by conceiving and giving birth to Jesus BEFORE her marriage to Joseph was consummated. Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 which contains this Messianic sign:
Matthew 1:23, 25
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us”...
And [Joseph] did not know her [Mary] till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
The word “till”, meaning until, is found in Catholic Bibles, not just Protestant. It is from the Greek “heos” which is a preposition meaning “as far as, up to, as much as, until.”
Look what Paul, an apostle, instructed regarding abstinence in marriage:
1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
This shows that a godly marriage must include physical intimacy. Any abstinence should be temporary and for a good reason.
Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
Joseph is instructed by God to “take” Mary as his wife. The only reason for their abstinence was to fulfill the Biblical prophecy cited. Beyond this abstinence would have been contrary to the very nature and design of marriage by God. It would have served no purpose whatsoever, except as a tool of the Devil to cause them to sin and as an exercise of self-righteous pride.
Catholic clergy and other advocates want to argue over this issue because they put tradition above the word of God and exalt Mary beyond measure. Though the images they bow to and offer prayers, incense, and flowers to in idolatry is not the real Mary but an impostor spirit cleverly designed by the forces of darkness to lead astray potential followers of Christ within their false religion away from Christ into idol worship.
The central focus of the Bible is Christ Jesus, not Mary or other persons who have achieved some “sainthood” unique to them and not others with faith in the Lord Jesus.
Colossians 2:8-10
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
- St. Augustine
The Lord loves a humble man!
Wrong
Are you saying that you don’t believe in the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit?
God can do all things.
But which James? James the son of Alphaeus? Or James the son of Zebedee?
For that matter, which Mary? It is unlikely that that particular Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph/Joses, was Mary of Nazareth, since that particular Mary was called "Mary of Clopas," (i.e. wife of Clopas) in John 19:25.
Do you want to posit that Mary of Nazareth was also the wife of Alphaeus? Zebedee? Clopas? Where does that leave Joseph the carpenter? Because Jesus was definitely known (to most) as the carpenter's son.
And Jesus is always called "THE son of Mary," but never "A" son of Mary, or "son of Alphaeus," " Zebedee." or Clopas." Nor are ANY of the Jameses ever "son of Joseph" or "the carpenter's son."
So I think your claim about Jesus' mother being the mother of James is.... problematic.
Nope. Not wrong. The Catholic insistence on worshipping Mary is Heresy. She was married and had children. Why is that so hard for Catholics to accept? The Jews considered having children the pinnacle of womanhood. Mary was a Jew. Joseph took her as his wife, there is no way he would not have had children with her.
We can all hope to be saints on the same terms, that of faith, fidelity, obedience.
Mary's unique, too, but not unique in sainthood. She has plenty of company there.
Neither. James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem.
For that matter, which Mary? It is unlikely that that particular Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph/Joses, was Mary of Nazareth, since that particular Mary was called "Mary of Clopas," (i.e. wife of Clopas) in John 19:25.
None of those. Mary, the wife of Joseph.
And Jesus is always called "THE son of Mary," but never "A" son of Mary,
"The" is a construct that is not in the original Greek.
So I think your claim about Jesus' mother being the mother of James is.... problematic.
Nope. James was universally accepted as the 1/2 brother (by blood) of Yeshua.
The Catholic religion has added many things to the requirement of faith for salvation.
The so-called “devotion” to the Catholic Mary is one of those things.
The Gospel of salvation requires faith in the Lord Jesus who we affirm was born of the virgin Mary. Yes, she is perpetually CALLED a virgin because this is a significant miracle, proving that Christ fulfilled the prophecy concerning His birth.
Our Lord and Savior was fully human because He was the Seed of the woman. Jesus was fully God because Mary conceived Him by the Holy Spirit. It is this that the Gospel calls upon us to believe concerning His conception and birth. No more.
Nor are believers called to be enamored with His mother. We honor her as we honor all godly women... and men. She certainly has a special place in the history of the Bible as well as Christ’s future kingdom.
But the message of salvation is NOT ABOUT Mary. Mary is part of the narrative. An important part. But the message is about Jesus. The message IS Jesus.
The Catholic religion has added endless doctrines and rituals which are supposed to be necessary for the salvation of men. But these things have been twisted and distorted into a caricature of their origins within the writings of early church fathers.
They have led people astray from the simplicity of Christ and into idolatry and false religion not focussed on the person of Christ.
If it is possible to twist the very word of God (and it is possible) to one’s own destruction, it is also certainly possible to twist the words of finite and fallible men, words that do not have the promise of God to be preserved perfectly forever, as the words of the scripture are.
The idea that Mary was physically intimate with Joseph subsequent to Christ’s birth is not something specifically addressed in the scriptures. It would not be an idea upon which a person’s faith for salvation must rest. Nor should it form a litmus test for sound doctrine or any ritual or custom in the church. And this is for the same reason that the idea of Mary remaining a virgin for her entire life is NOT an article of faith given to us in the word of God. Nor is believing such an idea a basis for sound doctrine, testimony, or apostolic tradition which is observed by the followers of Christ as a commandment (as apostolic traditions were).
You have done the very same thing that the Jewish leaders did with the Hebrew scriptures: adding to them doctrines and traditions of men, and laying upon men burdens that are grievous to be carried, not only not entering the kingdom of God for yourself but standing in the way of those who desire to enter it.
James the Just was and is identified with James, son of Alphaeus and James the Less, by the historic Church (Greek and Latin, East and West) and there is no evidence in the New Testament that positively establishes otherwise.
This is not to gainsay that scholars disagreed about whether this James was an older stepbrother (son of Joseph by an earlier marriage), or a cousin (son of a sister of Mary, also called Mary -- that happened, check out who was at the foot of the Cross, three Mary's).
This is still being hashed out, even in the beginning of the 21st century via a lawsuit concerning an ossuary bearing the inscription "Ya'aqov bar Yosef achui d'Yeshua" ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus").
In that case, the Israeli judge ruled that its authenticity or inauthenticity was not proven in any way, nor that the words 'the brother of Jesus' necessarily refer to the 'Jesus' who appears in Christian writings.
That added another layer to the whole controversy, since we now had to account for multiple Jameses, multiple Marys, multiple Josephs, AND multiple people named Jesus. The Biblical Archaeological Review even said it was statistically likely that there were more than one contemporaneous men named Jesus who would have been simultaneously a son of Joseph and a brother of James.
There goes your "universal acceptance" that there was a James who was the Lord Jesus Christ's biological brother from Jesus' birthmother Mary.
This is the Mary known from antiquity as Aeiparthenos (Greek: ἀειπαρθὲ) or Semper Virgine, in both languages, literally 'Ever-virgin'.
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.