James, the half-brother of Jesus, which half? Who are his biological mother and father?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
James, the half-brother of Jesus
- Thread starter GroomOf5Wise
- Start date
That's what I'm concluding to. Since the early church, and many current churches, including the Catholic Church, believe that Mary was always a virgin, and birthed no other children. So, it had to be through Joseph as another wife.
It would seem to suggest that she was not always a virgin in Matthew 1:24-25 “Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.“ However, it would seem that He did not have brothers who were sons of Mary because at the cross He gives the responsibility of caring for His mother to his disciple John. If he had brothers who were sons of Mary it would seem that this would have been a major offense to them, since it would have been their responsibility to take care of her. I could be wrong though.
You are quite right.
Joseph most def. gave Mary her conjugal rights.
About the rest (Joseph being poly) i find nothing convincing. I see Jesus saying "woman, behold thy son" as Jesus inducting Mary into His REAL family, which He had already stated before hand was the case. His Father was in heaven and his disciples were his mother and brothers.
Joseph most def. gave Mary her conjugal rights.
About the rest (Joseph being poly) i find nothing convincing. I see Jesus saying "woman, behold thy son" as Jesus inducting Mary into His REAL family, which He had already stated before hand was the case. His Father was in heaven and his disciples were his mother and brothers.
Agreed. What is not so clear is that the conjugal rights mentioned resulted in additional children. When Jesus made the famous statement, who are my brothers/mother etc, it was when his mother and brothers were outside the house. The idea that I have is that they are coming to reprove/rebuke him etc which makes me think that the brothers mentioned were perhaps older and that perhaps he was the youngest? Who knows, but I cant imagine a younger brother seeking to rebuke the oldest (if Mary was the mother of all of them) and I cant imagine a half brother who is younger and from a different wife trying to exert familial authority over him. The oldest son from Joseph’s first wife assuming familial authority and trying to keep the younger half brother from shaming the family? I can see that.
I expect that you're right, but I don't see this as proving it.
In common English, it seems common that people do mean yes after the "til", but I don't see a yes as being strictly implied after the til. All I see is a sure no til the event, and no statement made about what happens after the event.
One could say "I will not go to the beach til its sunny."
The statement doesn't strictly mean that one *will* go to the beach after it is sunny, only that one surely will not til it is sunny.
Another example; "Don't allow anyone to go swimming in the lake til after we check the bacteria count." Maybe the check came back elevated or some other problem was found.
Or another; "We didn't do xyz til we had a chance to consider if xyz is good or not." Maybe it was considered bad and thus not done.
The RCC answer is that James was merely a brother in the broad sense of family (maybe a cousin like John).
I don't think it holds water, but it helps to perpetuate a doctrine.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the perpetual virginity of Mary was true, but to get a brother for Jesus, Joseph would have to be a polygynist!
I don't think it holds water, but it helps to perpetuate a doctrine.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the perpetual virginity of Mary was true, but to get a brother for Jesus, Joseph would have to be a polygynist!
Yes, we can wriggle around the language and find a gap to shove in any presupposition we like. But if she truly remained a virgin, why is "till she had brought forth her firstborn son" even mentioned? Why doesn't it just say "and did not know her."? That's easier to write and much clearer. The only reason to ADD "till..." is if he did eventually consummate the marriage but the author wants to make it very clear that Mary was still a virgin at the time of the birth.
If something so significant is not clearly stated in scripture, it's probably not true.
Remember that you are reading a translation of a translation when you come down to a single word defining what it should mean to us in this century.
I am fine with it either way, I am good with just seeing through the glass darkly for now. I just find one of the options a bit more colorful.
I am fine with it either way, I am good with just seeing through the glass darkly for now. I just find one of the options a bit more colorful.
Regarding the ancient traditions:
The "Gospel of the Birth of Mary" states that Mary herself was born only after an angel appeared to her father and announced her birth, she was dedicated to God from birth, vowed to be a virgin for life, and raised in the temple. At the age of 14 the high priest ordered her to return home and get married because she was now mature enough, but she refused so as not to break her vow, so the high priest asked God what to do, who spoke verbally from the ark and told how he should choose what man should marry her. All the men from the house of David "who were marriageable, and not married" were told to come, and God chose Joseph by divine signs, although he was "very far advanced in years" and didn't want her at all. Mary went back to Galilee, had her vision, got pregnant, Joseph came to collect her, found she was pregnant, married her, and kept her a virgin all her life.
The "Protoevangelion" has a similar account of Mary's birth, being raised in the temple, and the selection of Joseph, with only minor differences (age 12 instead of 14, high priest told by an angel instead of a voice from the ark etc). In this version, it is all the widowers from all tribes who are called to be potential husbands for Mary (but preserve her virginity). When selected, "Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear lest I should appear ridiculous in Israel." But when the priest insisted he took her straight home, left her there, and went back to work, not returning until she was 6 months pregnant.
There is a lot of detail in both accounts that appears copied from the early life of Samson and Samuel, and the selection of Joseph is very similar to the selection of Aaron as high priest. I don't trust either account for accuracy. But the common theme is that Joseph was much older than Mary, possibly a widower with children from an earlier marriage. This sort of practical detail may be based on truth given the consistency. Both works do push a perpetual virgin narrative and it's hard to know whether the consistency means there is truth in this or whether it just means both are fabrications designed to give apparent validity to a predetermined theological point.
The "Gospel of the Birth of Mary" states that Mary herself was born only after an angel appeared to her father and announced her birth, she was dedicated to God from birth, vowed to be a virgin for life, and raised in the temple. At the age of 14 the high priest ordered her to return home and get married because she was now mature enough, but she refused so as not to break her vow, so the high priest asked God what to do, who spoke verbally from the ark and told how he should choose what man should marry her. All the men from the house of David "who were marriageable, and not married" were told to come, and God chose Joseph by divine signs, although he was "very far advanced in years" and didn't want her at all. Mary went back to Galilee, had her vision, got pregnant, Joseph came to collect her, found she was pregnant, married her, and kept her a virgin all her life.
The "Protoevangelion" has a similar account of Mary's birth, being raised in the temple, and the selection of Joseph, with only minor differences (age 12 instead of 14, high priest told by an angel instead of a voice from the ark etc). In this version, it is all the widowers from all tribes who are called to be potential husbands for Mary (but preserve her virginity). When selected, "Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear lest I should appear ridiculous in Israel." But when the priest insisted he took her straight home, left her there, and went back to work, not returning until she was 6 months pregnant.
There is a lot of detail in both accounts that appears copied from the early life of Samson and Samuel, and the selection of Joseph is very similar to the selection of Aaron as high priest. I don't trust either account for accuracy. But the common theme is that Joseph was much older than Mary, possibly a widower with children from an earlier marriage. This sort of practical detail may be based on truth given the consistency. Both works do push a perpetual virgin narrative and it's hard to know whether the consistency means there is truth in this or whether it just means both are fabrications designed to give apparent validity to a predetermined theological point.
I'm not discussing the meaning of the word "till", I'm questioning the reason for the existence of half of the sentence. It's not a translation issue. What other reason could there be for including this whole chunk of text at all?
"Did not know her" supports the virgin birth. "Until after X" either qualifies and limits the previous statement to only virginity up to the birth allowing for sex later, or is a pointless inclusion that serves only to confuse.
All of these examples are statements made about something possibly happening in the future. The verse in question is a historical account. I think that makes a big difference. There is no reason to include it as something that could happen in the future, it is telling us what did happen.
Boy, was that delicate!
I like it when you apply Occam's razor to these sorts of issues! Go Samuel.
To everyone who was not pleased with my previous message in this thread...
I don't perceive that discussions of Mary's "perpetual virginity" are all that interesting to Protestants except in regard to reasoning with a Catholic. I find no profit in arguing a point which my opponent can counter-argue into a draw, and thus give him a victory over me in that he argued my argument into no effect. I won't even touch the "Moses was a polygynist" argument with an MOA because, afaict, it's biblically unprovable. What profit is there in arguing a thing which he can counter argue into a draw and then think that he successfully defended "traditional marriage"?
What I have done here is show the fundamental meaning of "til" that one can expect a Catholic to respond with. I think it is very likely that he is going to hold to the fundamental meaning of the word which permits the doctrine of his church, rather than accept a reasonable conclusion from a plain reading of the text... which implies that his church is teaching error. What profit is there in giving a Catholic an opportunity to think that he "defended the faith"?
I don't perceive that discussions of Mary's "perpetual virginity" are all that interesting to Protestants except in regard to reasoning with a Catholic. I find no profit in arguing a point which my opponent can counter-argue into a draw, and thus give him a victory over me in that he argued my argument into no effect. I won't even touch the "Moses was a polygynist" argument with an MOA because, afaict, it's biblically unprovable. What profit is there in arguing a thing which he can counter argue into a draw and then think that he successfully defended "traditional marriage"?
What I have done here is show the fundamental meaning of "til" that one can expect a Catholic to respond with. I think it is very likely that he is going to hold to the fundamental meaning of the word which permits the doctrine of his church, rather than accept a reasonable conclusion from a plain reading of the text... which implies that his church is teaching error. What profit is there in giving a Catholic an opportunity to think that he "defended the faith"?
I think some of the most convincing arguments for many theological points are from the entirety of scripture and not the “well, in the original language, that verse says...” arguments. Those things are just extra weights on an already tilted scale for those who already believe. I agree that using an argument that can easily be argued to a draw with someone who disagrees, is pointless. I don’t use those ones either.