Mother of James?

[DNB]

Then show m BIBLICAL grounds for YOUR ridiculous claim.
Show me where it says that Mary had children other than Jesus.

DON'T show me verses that speak about the "Adelphoi" of Jesus because that word is used for MANY other things such as cousin, uncle, step-brother, half-brother, friend, neighbor, fellow Believer, etc.
Acts 1:15 talks about "120 SDELPHOI" gathered together to choose a successor for Judas.
Did they ALL come from the SAME mother? NO, because the 12 Apostles are among them and we KNOW they weren't ALL siblings.

I'll even go one step further - just to make it EASY on you.
Show me an extrabiblical (historical) document that talks about Mary having "other children".

I'll wait right here for your response . . .

You are being absolute based on, as you said yourself, ambiguous phraseology. So, if adelphoi can mean a relationship other than sibling, it can also mean sibling, thus, stalemate. Same with the expression, 'But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.' (Matthew 1:25). theefaith likes to do acrobatics with the word 'until', but, either way, it can still viably mean immediately, or soon after, therefore, another stalemate.
So, taking all relevant Biblical on this subject matter into consideration i.e. her predetermined desire to marry Joseph, Joseph's agreement to marry her after his revelation, the fact that they followed through with the marriage and remained so for approx. 30 years (whether or not Joseph was alive at the crucifixion).
Any unbiased and unindoctrinated person would agree that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage in a physically intimate manner, and consequently bore children together, namely James, Joses, Jude, Simon, and more than one daughter.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are being absolute based on, as you said yourself, ambiguous phraseology. So, if adelphoi can mean a relationship other than sibling, it can also mean sibling, thus, stalemate.

Same with the expression, 'But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.' (Matthew 1:25). theefaith likes to do acrobatics with the word 'until', but, either way, it can still viably mean immediately, or soon after, therefore, another stalemate.
So, taking all relevant Biblical on this subject matter into consideration i.e. her predetermined desire to marry Joseph, Joseph's agreement to marry her after his revelation, the fact that they followed through with the marriage and remained so for approx. 30 years (whether or not Joseph was alive at the crucifixion).
Any unbiased and unindoctrinated person would agree that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage in a physically intimate manner, and consequently bore children together, namely James, Joses, Jude, Simon, and more than one daughter.

As to your second point above in RED - I already destroyed that idea back in post #64 with the following barrage of Biblical norms involving the word "UNTIL" . . .

Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus? The Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave after this??

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

As to your FIRST point above in RED - Biblical statistics are again oh the Catholic side.
As I already sated - "Adelphos" is applied to brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, cousin, step-sibling, kinsfolk, same tribe, fellow believer and even a fellow countryman.

These are the statistics of the use of Adelphos(oi) in all of its variations in the New Testament:
There are 244 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

So - you can whine ALL you want about the "Adelphoi" of Jesus - but the not only does the Bible NEVER state that they are uterine siblings or children of Mary - it pretty much GUARANTEES that they are NOT . . .

 

[DNB]

As to your second point above in RED - I already destroyed that idea back in post #64 with the following barrage of Biblical norms involving the word "UNTIL" . . .

Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Did Mary have other children after Jesus? The Bible does not support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave after this??

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

As to your FIRST point above in RED - Biblical statistics are again oh the Catholic side.
As I already sated - "Adelphos" is applied to brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, cousin, step-sibling, kinsfolk, same tribe, fellow believer and even a fellow countryman.

These are the statistics of the use of Adelphos(oi) in all of its variations in the New Testament:
There are 244 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

So - you can whine ALL you want about the "Adelphoi" of Jesus - but the not only does the Bible NEVER state that they are uterine siblings or children of Mary - it pretty much GUARANTEES that they are NOT . . .

Look Mr. impetuous, you gave 3 examples of until, ...what about the thousands of others that support the 'immediately after', or 'subsequent' context of it's use. You're not serious, right (look who I'm asking).
I taught you in my previous post how to establish and apply sound hermeneutics, and yet you prefer to disregard fundamentally sound principles, and go off on your cultish and indoctrinated views.
In other words, every single person who reads any pericope that incudes Mary and her family, always intuitively understand her to be the biological mother to at least 7 children (including Jesus). It is only when the nefarious and devil-inspired papacy decided to make a cult to Mary, were they able to possess and indoctrinate their lemmings to subscribe to, and defend, such perverted heresy.
Just to let you know!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Look Mr. impetuous, you gave 3 examples of until, ...what about the thousands of others that support the 'immediately after', or 'subsequent' context of it's use. You're not serious, right (look who I'm asking).
I taught you in my previous post how to establish and apply sound hermeneutics, and yet you prefer to disregard fundamentally sound principles, and go off on your cultish and indoctrinated views.
In other words, every single person who reads any pericope that incudes Mary and her family, always intuitively understand her to be the biological mother to at least 7 children (including Jesus). It is only when the nefarious and devil-inspired papacy decided to make a cult to Mary, were they able to possess and indoctrinate their lemmings to subscribe to, and defend, such perverted heresy.
Just to let you know!

Actually - your statement above in RED is FALSE.

Not until AFTER the 16th century did people begin to think this way. For the 1500 years PRIOR to the 16th century - ALL people believed that Jesus was an ONLY child.
As a matter pf fact - the majority of your Protestant Fathers believed this as well.

The bizarre belief in Jesus's "uterine" siblings didn't really take root until their successors - and their successors took over their respective splinter groups. Luther, Zwingili, Melanchton, Calvin, Wesley, Bullinger and others ALL believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

As to YOUR injection of Matt. 1:15 and the use of the word "Until" as "proof" that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage - Calvin wrote:
"No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ" (Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 1:25". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07)

Martin Luther
According to His humanity, He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John [1537-1540]; chapter one; Luther’s Works: vol. 22, p. 23; translated by Martin H. Bertram)

He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Ibid., p. 214)

John Wesley:
The blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

Huldreich Zwingli:
"To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary." (G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, 88-89, 395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522)

 

[DNB]

Actually - your statement above in RED is FALSE.

Not until AFTER the 16th century did people begin to think this way. For the 1500 years PRIOR to the 16th century - ALL people believed that Jesus was an ONLY child.
As a matter pf fact - the majority of your Protestant Fathers believed this as well.

The bizarre belief in Jesus's "uterine" siblings didn't really take root until their successors - and their successors took over their respective splinter groups. Luther, Zwingili, Melanchton, Calvin, Wesley, Bullinger and others ALL believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

As to YOUR injection of Matt. 1:15 and the use of the word "Until" as "proof" that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage - Calvin wrote:
"No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ" (Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 1:25". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07)

Martin Luther
According to His humanity, He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John [1537-1540]; chapter one; Luther’s Works: vol. 22, p. 23; translated by Martin H. Bertram)

He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Ibid., p. 214)

John Wesley:
The blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

Huldreich Zwingli:
"To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary." (G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, 88-89, 395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522)

Sorry BOL, you know how I feel about these people anyhow - I don't take their theologies implicitly as orthodox. But, even if you are correct about the early Church's view on Mary's perpetual virginity, which I don't actually, then my personal exegesis still holds to my position. One has to do too much etymologies and historical review in order to come up with your interpretation. My view is a clear and natural reading of the text. All the rest is eisegeted. Your problem is, you won't even concede that my view is Biblically viable, this is where your stubbornness is revealed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are being absolute based on, as you said yourself, ambiguous phraseology. So, if adelphoi can mean a relationship other than sibling, it can also mean sibling, thus, stalemate. Same with the expression, 'But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.' (Matthew 1:25). theefaith likes to do acrobatics with the word 'until', but, either way, it can still viably mean immediately, or soon after, therefore, another stalemate.
So, taking all relevant Biblical on this subject matter into consideration i.e. her predetermined desire to marry Joseph, Joseph's agreement to marry her after his revelation, the fact that they followed through with the marriage and remained so for approx. 30 years (whether or not Joseph was alive at the crucifixion).
Any unbiased and unindoctrinated person would agree that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage in a physically intimate manner, and consequently bore children together, namely James, Joses, Jude, Simon, and more than one daughter.

So - YOU insist that Mary had "other" children - so let's recap:

You have presented verses that talk about the "Adelphoi" of Jesus - verses that NEVER mention Mary being their mother.
I destroyed that idea by showing you no less than THREE accounts of the Crucifixion that ALL corroborate the fat that these "named adelphoi" are the children of another woman named "Mary" who happens to be RELATED to Jesus's Mother. She is called the wife of "Clopas" - which is also rendered as "Alphaeus" in Aramaic. Ahis is the SAME Alphaeus (Clopas) who is called the Father of James tje Less - the "Brother" of Jesus.

You presented Matt. 1:25, which uses the word "until" - which I completely destroyed by giving you several Biblical examples of the use of this word that do NOT demand a subsequent action or consequence.

I showed you the statistical uses of the Greek word "Adelphos" and ALL of its variations in the NT (244) - and how FEW times it is used to refer to uterine siblings.

finally - when YOU insisted that virtually "everybody" believes that Mary and Joseph had sex and other children - I SLAMMED you with the words from your OWN Protestant Fathers who ALL believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - as did the entire WORLD for 1500 years.

You're not just up "against the ropes" here.
You were KNOCKED OUT several posts back - but you keep throwing blind punches . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry BOL, you know how I feel about these people anyhow - I don't take their theologies implicitly as orthodox. But, even if you are correct about the early Church's view on Mary's perpetual virginity, which I don't actually, then my personal exegesis still holds to my position. One has to do too much etymologies and historical review in order to come up with your interpretation. My view is a clear and natural reading of the text. All the rest is eisegeted. Your problem is, you won't even concede that my view is Biblically viable, this is where your stubbornness is revealed.

Oh, that's right - you just follow their unbiblical doctrines like Sola Scriptura - but you selectively reject some of the other things they taught.
You're just being a good little Protestant.

Protestantism was born of ecclesiastical divorce - so YOUR splintering away is just the natural course of things.
That's what we Catholics refer to as "Cafeteria Christianity" . . .

 

[DNB]

So - YOU insist that Mary had "other" children - so let's recap:

You have presented verses that talk about the "Adelphoi" of Jesus - verses that NEVER mention Mary being their mother.
I destroyed that idea by showing you no less than THREE accounts of the Crucifixion that ALL corroborate the fat that these "named adelphoi" are the children of another woman named "Mary" who happens to be RELATED to Jesus's Mother. She is called the wife of "Clopas" - which is also rendered as "Alphaeus" in Aramaic. Ahis is the SAME Alphaeus (Clopas) who is called the Father of James tje Less - the "Brother" of Jesus.

You presented Matt. 1:25, which uses the word "until" - which I completely destroyed by giving you several Biblical examples of the use of this word that do NOT demand a subsequent action or consequence.

I showed you the statistical uses of the Greek word "Adelphos" and ALL of its variations in the NT (244) - and how FEW times it is used to refer to uterine siblings.

finally - when YOU insisted that virtually "everybody" believes that Mary and Joseph had sex and other children - I SLAMMED you with the words from your OWN Protestant Fathers who ALL believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - as did the entire WORLD for 1500 years.

You're not just up "against the ropes" here.
You were KNOCKED OUT several posts back - but you keep throwing blind punches . . .

the point is, you are not recognizing that both interpretation are viable, at least, I am. But, you require too much esoteric data to justify your positions, whereas mine just flows with the context. Especially where Jesus said '...who are my brothers and sisters, are they not the ones who do my word?...' This does not have half the effect if the people that he was referring to in the former part of his statement, were not even his siblings - his point would be redundant.

 

[DNB]

Oh, that's right - you just follow their unbiblical doctrines like Sola Scriptura - but you selectively reject some of the other things they taught.
You're just being a good little Protestant.

Protestantism was born of ecclesiastical divorce - so YOUR splintering away is just the natural course of things.
That's what we Catholics refer to as "Cafeteria Christianity" . . .

Well, you're correct, I am very selective and promiscuous with my theology. I hold no one as authoritative and thus, must be open-minded to all, even Catholicism. But, not frivolous nor inclusive, but very precise and dogmatic, but still open-minded enough to make a comprehensive decision.

 

[theefaith]

No one, worth mentioning, consents to marriage without sex. You have no Biblical grounds for this ridiculous claim, and your exegesis is deplorable. I have no idea why you and Marymog prefer insanity over rational deduction?

sex is more important than the salvation the whole world?

 

[theefaith]

I had to look up Helvidius - very smart guy.
As far as all the other theologians that you quoted, all you managed to do was underscore my lack of faith in their acumen, that I already had for them.

and still a condemned heretic

 

[theefaith]

If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples.

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).

amen

 

[theefaith]

I had to look up Helvidius - very smart guy.
As far as all the other theologians that you quoted, all you managed to do was underscore my lack of faith in their acumen, that I already had for them.

Soul said

Is Mary the mother of James?
If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples.

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).

 

[theefaith]

Where is the immaculate conception in the Bible?

 

[theefaith]

I had to look up Helvidius - very smart guy.
As far as all the other theologians that you quoted, all you managed to do was underscore my lack of faith in their acumen, that I already had for them.

Where are these sins of Mary at the cross, if Jesus has brothers according to the law He could not give his mother to John

 

[BreadOfLife]

the point is, you are not recognizing that both interpretation are viable, at least, I am. But, you require too much esoteric data to justify your positions, whereas mine just flows with the context. Especially where Jesus said '...who are my brothers and sisters, are they not the ones who do my word?...' This does not have half the effect if the people that he was referring to in the former part of his statement, were not even his siblings - his point would be redundant.

WRONG.

First off - recognizing both "viable" interpretations is ONE thing.
Reading them in their proper context is quite another.

The laundry list of Scriptural evidence for Mary's Perpetual Virginity that I gave you simply does not allow for YOUR insistence that she and Joseph had relations and bore "other" children. Not only have I shown you the true identity of the mother of the "named adelphoi" of Jesus - I obliterated your "Until" argument and statistically-torpedoed your "brethren" (Adelphoi) position.

Finally - your comment above regarding my reliance on "esoteric data" is rubbish. I Scripturally annihilated your position.
That aside - 2000 years of Tradition also tells us that Mary had no other children - and YOU haven't been able to produce ONE single extrabiblical account that refutes this.

In a court of Law - you'd have been thrown out LONG ago . . .

 

[Marymog]

On the contrary, God chose both a betrothed, and a righteous couple, so that the shame of an illegitimate child could, and would, be concealed.
They married promptly, and after Mary delivered Jesus, Mary fulfilled her vow and duty as a wife, and her and Joseph had intercourse in order to produce more children, namely Joses, James, Simon and Jude, and some daughters also.

good morning DNB,

Yup.....According to Scripture Joses and James mother was named Mary ALSO....That is made clear in Mark 15:40!! You are repeating the heretical teaching of Helvidius that was picked up 1,200 years later by men who were radicals in the Reformation!

Mary didn't have a "vow and duty as a wife" to have intercourse. Your theory is opposite of what the bible says. Here is what the bible teaches about it: It is good to abstain from sexual relations. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God. There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.

Sooooo I have a very simple question for you DNB: Paul calls virginity (abstaining from sex) a "gift from God". Do you believe that God would give Paul that gift and not give Mary, the mother of His child, that gift?

According to your theory having children is a normal part of a married life!! Putting your theory into practice that means that Mary was the wife of God since she bore His child. AND the wife of Joseph since....according to your theory.....she bore the children of Joseph also.

Scripture permits abstention from marital rights by mutual consent. Would it be fair to say if both Mary and Joseph agreed that since she gave birth to the child of God, or that she was in effect the spouse of God, that they would agree NOT to have sexual relations? Do you believe Mary and Joseph did not have enough will power to fulfill that teaching of God?

Scripture makes it clear that celibacy is a higher state than marriage! Is it possible that Mary and Joseph were able to obtain that higher state by not giving into sexual desires?

Mary

 

[theefaith]

WRONG.

First off - recognizing both "viable" interpretations is ONE thing.
Reading them in their proper context is quite another.

The laundry list of Scriptural evidence for Mary's Perpetual Virginity that I gave you simply does not allow for YOUR insistence that she and Joseph had relations and bore "other" children. Not only have I shown you the true identity of the mother of the "named adelphoi" of Jesus - I obliterated your "Until" argument and statistically-torpedoed your "brethren" (Adelphoi) position.

Finally - your comment above regarding my reliance on "esoteric data" is rubbish. I Scripturally annihilated your position.
That aside - 2000 years of Tradition also tells us that Mary had no other children - and YOU haven't been able to produce ONE single extrabiblical account that refutes this.

In a court of Law - you'd have been thrown out LONG ago . . .

not to mention the Bible says a son (one singular) not children Is 7:14 matt 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son.

does not say she shall bring forth children

 

[theefaith]

And Lk 1:34 know not a man

 

[Marymog]

Who said anything about making their own doctrine or faith. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us. We are meant to read our bibles and be open to the word.

Good Morning Pearl,

I am really curious about your train of thought on this matter. To me what you are saying is not logical. You do know that the books in our current Bible was not completely agreed until almost 400 years AFTER the death of Christ soooooo how did the Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity read their bibles when everyone disagreed on what the bible (Scripture) was???? We still disagree today....

Also, most people were illiterate and couldn't read in the first 400 years sooooooo how were they "meant to read" since they couldn't read??

Also, the bible was not available to the general population until the invention of the printing press which was 1,400 years AFTER the death of Christ soooooo along with illiteracy for the first 1,400 years of Christianity AND no bible to read how were those Christians "meant to read" their bibles and "be open to the word"??

If the Holy Spirit is guiding you into one truth and me into a different truth...which one is The Truth? Multiply that by 2 billion "truths" and "the truth" can be very confusing.....

Curious Mary