Did Mary and Joseph Have other Children?

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
DHK,

Do answer my post above about how you came up with 346 occurances of Adelphos in the NT?

done

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Round and round we go. Nice eisegesis DHK. Sounds good but like Peter says the unstable will twist to their own destructin and some people will even be fooled by it.

It is called sound exposition of the Word of God according to Biblical hermeneutics which has yet to be refuted.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

The Sepuigent was around long before Jesus; its not as if it was written by some "evil Catholics" trying to work up a conspiracy to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Therefore, the use of adelphos in the Greek OT is still valid. I would assume (feel free to verify) that the Hebrew also says a word which simply means "brother." But Abraham and Lot were not brothers.

Now, just as the Septuigent took the Hebrew and brought the word "brother" into the Greek (even though he was not literally a blood brother), why is it so far fetched to think it crazy that when Jesus spoke Aramaic, when His words were put into the Greek NT, they kept Jesus Aramaic word for "brother" even though it does not necessitate a literal brother?

It's a perfect parallel.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

The Sepuigent was around long before Jesus; its not as if it was written by some "evil Catholics" trying to work up a conspiracy to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Septuagint was written ca. 250 B.C. by about 70 hellenistic Jews who wrote it for the benefit of those Jews who were so hellenized that they were losing their comprehension of their own Hebrew language. It's secondary purpose was to make the Old Testament Scriptures available to more than just the Jewish community. A good example would be Timothy's family. Timothy had a Greek father but a Jewish mother.

There is no conspiracy. I agree. But there is nothing to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary in the Septuagint, nothing to prove that Jesus quoted from it, nothing to prove that the meaning of adelphos is cousin, though it may have been used that way in some rare cases.

Therefore, the use of adelphos in the Greek OT is still valid. I would assume (feel free to verify) that the Hebrew also says a word which simply means "brother." But Abraham and Lot were not brothers.

The Septuagint, like the KJV, or the ASV, the RSV, or any other translation is not the inspired Word of God. Sound amazing? Well, it is true. It is simply a translation of the originals which were written in Hebrew. To find out the meaning of any word in Genesis you must go to the Hebrew not the Greek. You must be able to demonstrate it from the Hebrew, and then Hebrew, of course has no relevance on the Greek language.

Now, just as the Septuigent took the Hebrew and brought the word "brother" into the Greek (even though he was not literally a blood brother), why is it so far fetched to think it crazy that when Jesus spoke Aramaic, when His words were put into the Greek NT, they kept Jesus Aramaic word for "brother" even though it does not necessitate a literal brother?

This is all assumption. You have not yet proved one fact yet. You don't know if Jesus spoke Aramaic in that place and context. In fact it wasn't Jesus speaking. It was the crowd that was speaking. So that is a red herring. In Mat.13:55, It is not Jesus that says: "Is this not the carpenter's son..." Those statements were not originally in Aramaic; they were in Greek.

Furthermore, we don't go by assumptions; we go by facts. The fact of the Word of God, is that the New Testament books--all of them, were inspired by the Holy Spirit--in the GREEK language and in none other. There is no proof that there was any document in Aramaic. And if there was it was not inspired. We have only the Greek to contend with, not any other. It is the Greek New Testament that was inspired by God, and nothing else.

It's a perfect parallel.

I see nonsense, not parallels.
I see Catholics trying to read into Scriptures heretical doctrines that are not there, but not parallels.
I see a twisting of Scripture to squeeze into Scripture in any way possible the perpetual virginity of Mary, a man-made doctrine--but folks it just isn't there. Read Mat.13:55,56 and understand it for what it is. Is Joses a cat, James a dog, Simon a brother, and Jude a cousin?
Read into it whatever you want, but I take the Bible as it is written.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

I do not know Hebrew. But, if I am so wrong, could you show me the word for "Brother" used in the Hebrew of this Genesis account? Would it be the same one that Jesus would have used (albeit in the Aramaic form)?

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Well I assuemed that a chatholic would have answered this because they would have the answer. So here is anyones chance if you know why do catholics belive perpetual virginity? See my previous question. Thanks in advance for anyone who can enlighten me.

Music4Him

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Well I'm not sure how to word this question to the catholics in this discussion properly but here goes.
The way that ya'll speak of Mary and the virginity issue its like saying that it was not right or proper? Why would Mary have been denied the right to enjoy the intiment(sp?) part of her marriage with Joseph? Why would she have to stay a virgin after the birth? Why would it be so wrong? Just wondering cause I just don't see it mentioned in the OT or the NT of the 66 books of the bible.

Music4Him

</font>[/QUOTE]Let me give it a shot. Yes there are answers for this in Catholic theology.This post will not do them justice as books have been written on the matter. Why do we believe it? Because it is time tested and true. It has been the dogma of the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth for 2000 years. Only Johnny come lately Protestants and a man named Helvecius and perhaps Tertullian denied it in the early Church. A host of other Church fathers spoke or alluded to it. Did Mary HAVE to remain a virgin? No. It is fitting that she did however. Further, as I said before, I do believe that Joseph would have been in awe over the whole thing. Imagine, your wife just bore the Son of God. But there is a deeper reason in Catholic theology that I am sure you never considered and probably will not get unless you become Catholic. You see Mary has been seens from the earliest of days as a type of the Church. There is much evidence for this that I simply don't have time to go in to at this moment. Part of it lies in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament which is a type of Mary. Have you ever compared 2 Sam 6 to Luke 1. There are some striking parrellel's that I am sure you cannot explain with your protestant theology so you will likely explain them away as I have had countless Protestants do. First both incidents happened in Judah. So what you say. If there were not more I would agree. But there is. First of all David says of the Ark, "how is it that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (in 2 Sam 6) In Luke 1 Elizabeth says "how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?". Coinciedence? Perhaps if that was all that went on. John leaps before Mary in Elizabeth's womb. David leaps before the Ark in 2 Sam 6. Mary stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. The ark stays with Obemedon for three months. Coincidence? No, I think I would call it a Godincidence.

What is the significance of all of this. The ark being a type of Mary, there is much that happens with the Ark that parrellels what happened with Mary and how God intervened in her life. The Ark was made per GOD's specifications. It proceeded the Jews in battle and in to the Holy land. They had great reverence for it. They even bowed and prayed through it to God in Joshua 7. Now any Protestant would say they were worshipping it in that chapter but God knew there hearts and they were worshipping him while showing great honor to the AOC. As for perpetual virginity, the Ark was never to be touched. If anyone did they would die, as Uzzah did in 2 Sam 6. This speaks of the purity and "virginity" of Christ's Church. There is so much more I could say but we will see how you handle this.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]Ok let me ask this question could Jesus be the ark and Mary just the one who carried the ark? This is why I ask.
1.What was "in" the original ark of the covenant? (a)The manna, (b) the law (ten commandments),(c) and the staff. Are these symbols of something? ~Word~

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1.Did Mary carry that ark instead of being the ark?
2.Doesn't the word tell us that Jesus was the one who was spotless (I also pitched this in for I had read that about the no sin Mary thing(gee I'm not great with word so please take no offece how I say this) for He fulfiled the law?
3.What did Jesus carry in Him?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is just something that kinda jumped out at me when reading the above topic between me and Thess~. What do ya'll think about it?
Thanks
Music4Him

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

I do not know Hebrew. But, if I am so wrong, could you show me the word for "Brother" used in the Hebrew of this Genesis account? Would it be the same one that Jesus would have used (albeit in the Aramaic form)?

The word for brother in the Hebrew is 'ach, and as far as I can see is only translated brother, or a similar form such as brothers or brethren. However in my search I found that there is a specific Greek word for "cousin" which is "suggaynes", which is used three times in the New Testament. If they were his cousins, then why wouldn't this word have been used instead of adelphos?
Likewise in Hebrew, the word for nephew, which Lot was, is simply "ben" kind of a general or generic word, not as specific as "ach"
But the word used in Genesis 14:16, "his brother Lot" is "ach." For this reason some commentaries suggest that Abraham may be referring to Lot in a spiritual sense: "a brother in the Lord." Some interesting thoughts.
DHK

 

[DHK]

 

[thessalonian]

"Ok let me ask this question could Jesus be the ark and Mary just the one who carried the ark?

Absolutely. That interprutatoin is allowable in the Catholic mindset. I have read it in I believe Augustine's writings. But you see in Cathoilcism there is not one and only one understanding of a type. For instance Jesus says that he is the light of the world in one place. Yet another he says "you are the light of the world". In 1 Cor 3:11 it says that he is the foundatoin and yet in Eph 2:20 it says Prophets and Apostles are the foundation. We have no problem with Peter being called the rock in Matt 16:18, even though in hebrews and other places it calls Jesus the Rock for the same reason. That his faith was true he was a rock. I get a kick out of the arguement some Prots use on Matt 16:18 with regard to Church fathers. Some they say disagree with our interprutatoin of Matt 16:18 because a particular father gives it a different interprutatoin. Funny thing is some use more than one interprutatoin which shows they did not always see dichotomy or contradiction in different interprutatoins. You see, the whole idea of Christianity is that we are being molded in to his image and likeness. Mary, being "full of grace" Luke 1, was already there in the sense that she was sinless. The Church itself is being molded in to a holy vessel (sanctified) and in that sense we also as the Church could be viewed to be the Ark of the Covenant. Paul says "yet not I, but Christ lives in me" in Galatians. Like I said before my post simply will not do the issue justice.


"1.What was "in" the original ark of the covenant? (a)The manna, (b) the law (ten commandments),(c) and the staff. Are these symbols of something? ~Word~"

Amen. But Mary most certainly was the God bearer also. There is no real bearer of the God bearer.

"John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1.Did Mary carry that ark instead of being the ark?"

I don't believe this is a neccessary conclusion and Mary certainly was not a levitical priest. Or was it the Aaronic that carried the ark. I would have to look it up.


"This is just something that kinda jumped out at me when reading the above topic between me and Thess~. What do ya'll think about it?"

It should.

Thanks

Your welcome.

 

[thessalonian]

"The fact still stands. The only translation of the word is "brother.""

And was every instance in which brother was the answer, literal from the same mother. I know the answer of course so you don't need to answer this question. Once again I don't require these "brothers" of Jesus to be cousins.

I've had enough fun for today.

Blessings

 

[Johnv]

As I posted earlier on this thread, the word for "brother" in New Testament Greek is adelphos. But the word does not always refer to a relationship of uterine brotherhood. Aadelphos can, depending on context, be used to mean brother, near kinsman or relative, one of the same nation or nature, one of equal rank and dignity, an associate, or even a member of the Christian community.

In Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt. 13:55), the people of Nazareth ask, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude, and Simon?". There is adequate context to imply that these are literally brothers as we know it.

On the other hand, in Mark 15:40 (cf. Matt. 27:56), standing near the cross with Mary Magdalene and Salome is a certain Mary, who is the mother of James the less and Joses. A bit later, in Mark 16:1 (cf. Luke 24:10), this same Mary is referred to more simply as "Mary [the mother] of James." Similarly, in Matthew 27:61 and Matt. 28:1, this same Mary is referred to as "the other Mary," to distinguish her from Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So what's the point? Look at John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." In these verses, it can be inferred that two of the brothers, James the less and Joses, were cousins.

Now, as far as Jude, (the same Jude who wrote the Epistle of Jude) Jude 1 records that Jude is the brother of James. If James is Jesus' brother, then Jude, too, is Jesus' brother. But if James is Jesus' cousin, the Jude, too, is Jesus' cousin.

So, to conclude, is it possible that Jesus had siblings? Yes, it's possible, but it's not biblically difinitive.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"The fact still stands. The only translation of the word is "brother.""

And was every instance in which brother was the answer, literal from the same mother. I know the answer of course so you don't need to answer this question. Once again I don't require these "brothers" of Jesus to be cousins.

I've had enough fun for today.

Blessings

No, the word itself was translated "brother" in every case. It could by context be defined in another way--spiritual brother, etc. But the word itself was always translated brother. That is all that I am saying.
The second thing that I am saying is this: There were other words (both in Greek and in Hebrew) for words such as "nephew" "cousin" etc. If it was therefore so important for these relatives to be named as cousins, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to put the word for cousin in Mat.13:55? Obciously, because they were not his cousins--they were exactly who Matthew writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit said they were: BROTHERS!
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Let's lay this out.

The Genesis Account:
The Hebrew word translates to "brother." In Greek, it also translates to "brother." But it did not mean brother LITERALLY, but in a (to your own admission) "spiritual" way.

The New Testament Account:
The Aramaic word translates to "brother." In Greek, it also translates to "brother." But it must absolutely mean brother in the literal since, not the spiritual sense.

If you deny this contradiction, I think I will pull out my hair.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
As I posted earlier on this thread, the word for "brother" in New Testament Greek is adelphos. But the word does not always refer to a relationship of uterine brotherhood. Aadelphos can, depending on context, be used to mean brother, near kinsman or relative, one of the same nation or nature, one of equal rank and dignity, an associate, or even a member of the Christian community.

Been there already John. Read my post above. The primary meaning of adelphos is brother, just as it is translated over 100 times in the NT, with no other alternalte translation of the word ever given. Why are we going through this again? I admit it could have one of the meanings listed above. So could the word "conversation" mean "citizenship." (Phil.3:20). "Conversation" is translated as "citizenship" at least once in the Bible, but the word adelphos in over 100 times is never translated anything other than brother. Your argument is fruitless. The other meanings are secondary meanings and very rarely used.

In Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt. 13:55), the people of Nazareth ask, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude, and Simon?". There is adequate context to imply that these are literally brothers as we know it.

On the other hand, in Mark 15:40 (cf. Matt. 27:56), standing near the cross with Mary Magdalene and Salome is a certain Mary, who is the mother of James the less and Joses. A bit later, in Mark 16:1 (cf. Luke 24:10), this same Mary is referred to more simply as "Mary [the mother] of James." Similarly, in Matthew 27:61 and Matt. 28:1, this same Mary is referred to as "the other Mary," to distinguish her from Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So what's the point? Look at John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." In these verses, it can be inferred that two of the brothers, James the less and Joses, were cousins.

Now, as far as Jude, (the same Jude who wrote the Epistle of Jude) Jude 1 records that Jude is the brother of James. If James is Jesus' brother, then Jude, too, is Jesus' brother. But if James is Jesus' cousin, the Jude, too, is Jesus' cousin.

So, to conclude, is it possible that Jesus had siblings? Yes, it's possible, but it's not biblically difinitive.

The other Mary was the mother of James the less (an apostle also known as the son of Alphaeus), but not the mother of Joses, for Joses was the son of Mary the mother of Jesus.
However there is a relation in that the Mother of James the less could be also the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.
James the Lord’s brother is not the same as James the less. He is the brother of Jude, and the brother of Joses.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

Let's lay this out.

OK, lets do it.
Dear Brother Grace,
I regret to inform you that you are not my physical brother. However if you have trusted Jesus Christ as your Saviour at some point in time in your life you may be my spiritual brother, if you so desire to be called. Please be informed that brother means brother whether used in a spiritual sense or physical sense, whether used in Greek or whether used in Hebrew.

Yours in Christ,
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

The point is that if the Greek translators didn't feel a need to clarify the type of brother that Abraham was to Lot, why would it be any different for the Greek authors in translating Jesus' Aramaic into Greek. Jesus no doubt used the word for brothers. That is why it is translated as brothers. However, to say it means physical brothers is to simply make an assumption. It, unlike many other "brothers" in the NT were not quotations of Aramaic speech, but were written in Greek originally. Therefore, there is a greater vocabulary choice. However, in Jesus' case, they used his actual words, and did not change them.

How many times is "adelphos" used in the Greek NT that are quotations of something someone said (which relegates it solely to the Gospels or Acts)? IE, how many times is adelphos used in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

The point is that if the Greek translators didn't feel a need to clarify the type of brother that Abraham was to Lot, why would it be any different for the Greek authors in translating Jesus' Aramaic into Greek. Jesus no doubt used the word for brothers. That is why it is translated as brothers. However, to say it means physical brothers is to simply make an assumption. It, unlike many other "brothers" in the NT were not quotations of Aramaic speech, but were written in Greek originally. Therefore, there is a greater vocabulary choice. However, in Jesus' case, they used his actual words, and did not change them.

Who is making assumptions? "no doubt"
The Septuagint cannot be compared to the Greek New Testament and I refuse to do so.
Please understand this. The Septuagint is a translation--not the infallible inspired Word of God. It is only a translation, translated by fallible men who are prone to make mistakes.
On the other hand the Greek New Testament in its original form was infallible, in errant, perfect. It was and is God's perfect Word, His revelation to mankind. What we have today are translations of that Word, just like the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT.

Therefore when the Holy Spirit of God, as opposed to sinful man, writes adelphos meaning brother, we trust that that is what he means. This is not simply an assumption. It is putting my trust in the Word of God, as opposed to man's words and man's reasoning.

How many times is "adelphos" used in the Greek NT that are quotations of something someone said (which relegates it solely to the Gospels or Acts)? IE, how many times is adelphos used in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts?

In the Gospel of Matthew adelphos is used 39 times.
In the Gospel of Mark adelphos is used 20 times
In the Gospel of Luke adelphos is used 24 times
In the Gospel of John adelphos is used 14 times

I have found that these totals are greater than in my computer program because in many verses where adelphos is translated it is also translated in the plural as "brethren." Mat.4:18,21 are examples. (Mat.5:22,23,24)
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

Music4Him,

One thing I should say about your last post about just Jesus being the Ark (I don't disagree that it can be viewed in that light). I do believe that it is impossible to rule Mary out as a proper interprutation because of the fact that it was Mary whom Elizabeth said "How is it that the Mother of My Lord should come to me" of which it is Mary who is in parrellel with the Ark in the verse in 2 Sam 6. It is the Ark the stays with Obemedon for 3 months and it is Mary who stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. So while I agree that another view from other passages (that you have alluded to) allows for Jesus as the Ark, you cannot rule out Mary because of them. I hope that is clear.

Blessings

 

[Todd]

What is clear here is that DHK is using sound exegesis, and the Catholics posting continue to speak of "assumptions" without offering any real NT exegesis to refute his understanding of the word adelphos . Again, we must ask the question (for the fiftieth time) - would one really believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary if they did not feel forced to do so, based on the dogmas of the RCC. Of course not! Sound exegesis has prevailed on this string.

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Music4Him,

One thing I should say about your last post about just Jesus being the Ark (I don't disagree that it can be viewed in that light). I do believe that it is impossible to rule Mary out as a proper interprutation because of the fact that it was Mary whom Elizabeth said "How is it that the Mother of My Lord should come to me" of which it is Mary who is in parrellel with the Ark in the verse in 2 Sam 6. It is the Ark the stays with Obemedon for 3 months and it is Mary who stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. So while I agree that another view from other passages (that you have alluded to) allows for Jesus as the Ark, you cannot rule out Mary because of them. I hope that is clear.

Blessings

Thank you ~Thess~ I acually do see the parallel in the scriptures above of Jesus being the ark. I still don't see Mary as being the ark herself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heres some background that I looked up.
1. (a)Mary came from the Levi line. Luke 3:23-38 traced all the way back to Adam. Wow!
(b)Obededom that is mentioned in 1 Sam. 6:10-12 and in 1 Cron. 15:25, (v.26) was from the Levi line. *source KJB*
Why Levi's line to bear the ark?
Some interesting info in the Smiths bible dicionary if you have one give it a look see, I looked at the word Levites.

[parallels]
Where David said in 1Sam 6:9 -How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

After taking into Luke 1:43 - Whence (Why) is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The answer to Davids question is....... Mary that is out of the house of Levi is bringing/bearing the ark to the city of David (Jerusalem).

I don't know if anyone else reads it this way? But thats just how I read it. Now would this mean that Mary could have other children? Yes...Would it make her any less a human if she gave birth to other children with Joseph after having her first born? No...... @rrrrrrrround and @rrrrrrrround we go. Is this topic trivial? Maybe, but very eye opening when looking at the all the other parallels of the OT & NT.

BTW, since I'm new here has the OT & NT parallels ever been dicussed on these boards? It might be a interesting topic?

Love in Christ!
Music4Him