Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

As usual, Jesus spoke in parables or figurative language to the masses but when His disciples questioned him privately, He used plain language. In verses 41 and 52, we find the "Jews" disputing or grumbling among themselves. These are the masses gathered to hear Him. The masses did not understand. They wanted another miracle of loaves and fishes. They were thinking with their stomachs. Jesus countered with hard words. He foreshadowed His death and the cost of following Him. His kingdom would begin with His death and first be a spiritual kingdom. The common Jew wanted a physical kingdom providing temporal reward. When Jesus switched the metaphor to His body and blood, they did not understand. Bread they could relate to eating. They took His words literally and did not understand how they could eat His flesh.

Starting in verse 60, His disciples were also confused and asked Him what He meant. He explains that the flesh profits nothing. It is the spirit that gives life. He could have offered this explanation to the masses but did not. This is not the only time we see Jesus speaking in metaphor or parables to the common Jews but privately telling His disciples the plain truth.

When Jesus said He was the bread of life, that was a metaphor. Jesus was not made of bread. Bread gives sustenance. We need to eat to live physically. His flesh and blood were a metaphor for the spiritual food He would provide through His death and resurrection. Because of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the Jews could easily take the bread metaphor literally. When Jesus turned the metaphor into something bloody and harsh, it broke their spirits and confused them. They went from visions of full bellies to a confusing image of eating flesh and drinking blood not understanding that he was speaking in metaphors. He cleared that up for His disciples by saying the flesh profits nothing. If He had meant His literal flesh and blood, He would have made that clear but instead says He's not talking about literal flesh and blood. Those things profit not. Those among His disciples who were weak in faith, still could not stomach it. Like the wheat sown among the weeds that soon choke it of life, their faith failed them when they saw the cost of following the Lord and the kind of kingdom He was there to establish.

This is all in keeping with how Jesus spoke to the masses as opposed to His disciples. His words often confused the masses. He did not always speak plainly to them. One must keep this in mind when understanding the response of the masses.

It's a mistake to assume that Jesus always spoke to the masses in parables or figurative language. In John 6:50-53 Jesus uses a form of "phago," the Koine Greek word used for "eat." When the Jews questioned Jesus, Jesus is more assertive. In John 6:54 Jesus switches his words and begins to use forms of the word "trogein" for our English "eat." You can miss this if you don't examine the Greek. "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate/ So when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them he is speaking figuratively or symbolically, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

John 6:50-57 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
RSVCE

When Jesus speaks to his disciples he does not state he spoke figuratively, to the contrary, He asks "Do you take offense at this?"

John 6: 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? RSVCE

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It's a mistake to assume that Jesus always spoke to the masses in parables or figurative language. In John 6:50-53 Jesus uses a form of "phago," the Koine Greek word used for "eat." When the Jews questioned Jesus, Jesus is more assertive. In John 6:54 Jesus switches his words and begins to use forms of the word "trogein" for our English "eat." You can miss this if you don't examine the Greek. "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate/ So when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them he is speaking figuratively or symbolically, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

John 6:50-57 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
RSVCE

When Jesus speaks to his disciples he does not state he spoke figuratively, to the contrary, He asks "Do you take offense at this?"

John 6: 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? RSVCE

On the contrary, Jesus proclaimed to His disciples that He would only speak to the Jews in parabels:

10 And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 And [a]Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And [b]in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘[c]You shall keep on listening, [d]but shall not understand;
And [e]you shall keep on looking, [f]but shall not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their heart, and return,
And I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

It was such a pattern that you would need clear evidence that He broke from this pattern.

As to the change in Greek verbs for "to eat", if you do a word search in the Greek, John and other Gospel writers always use trogein when using the verb in the Present Participle Active tense. The verb phagein is always used when the tense is Aorist Infinite Active. John switched to trogein in John 13:18. He switch appears to be for grammatical reasons and not word meaning. Both words are very similar in meaning. The argument for grammatical usuage is stronger than the argument for a word switch to amplify the meaning.

The "offense" He speaks of is on two levels. Those who objected did not understand His words and were taking them literally and took offense at that. They also did not like the message that following Him would be hard and not yield the kind of earthly kingdom they were hoping for. He was dealing with them literally since they were taking Him literally and missing the real meaning of His words. Like the masses, they were only hearing in parables and missing the true meaning.

 

[Valletta]

On the contrary, Jesus proclaimed to His disciples that He would only speak to the Jews in parabels:

10 And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 And [a]Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And [b]in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘[c]You shall keep on listening, [d]but shall not understand;
And [e]you shall keep on looking, [f]but shall not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their heart, and return,
And I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

It was such a pattern that you would need clear evidence that He broke from this pattern.

As to the change in Greek verbs for "to eat", if you do a word search in the Greek, John and other Gospel writers always use trogein when using the verb in the Present Participle Active tense. The verb phagein is always used when the tense is Aorist Infinite Active. John switched to trogein in John 13:18. He switch appears to be for grammatical reasons and not word meaning. Both words are very similar in meaning. The argument for grammatical usuage is stronger than the argument for a word switch to amplify the meaning.

The "offense" He speaks of is on two levels. Those who objected did not understand His words and were taking them literally and took offense at that. They also did not like the message that following Him would be hard and not yield the kind of earthly kingdom they were hoping for. He was dealing with them literally since they were taking Him literally and missing the real meaning of His words. Like the masses, they were only hearing in parables and missing the true meaning.

Of course Jesus made literal statements in front of crowds. You're making an incorrect assumption and using it to support your personal interpretation which seems far from what the Bible says. What grammatical reason are you claiming for the switch of words? The words have different meanings.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Of course Jesus made literal statements in front of crowds. You're making an incorrect assumption and using it to support your personal interpretation which seems far from what the Bible says. What grammatical reason are you claiming for the switch of words? The words have different meanings.

I recognize figurative language when I see it. I see no reason to take Jesus' words here literally and doing so makes no sense. Besides, if partaking in the Lord's flesh and blood is necessary for eternal life then what about Catholics who are baptized but not yet had first communion? Do they have no life since they have not eaten Jesus' flesh and drank His blood? According to your interpretation, Jesus said unless you eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, you have no part in Him. So no one is saved until after Catholic communion?

The meanings of the words are not that different. Both refer to eating. One is more descriptive but looking at Strong's definition, note this:

For the word phago:
Usage: I eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does); used only in fut. and 2nd aor. tenses. That is what I referred to in my previous post. In John 6:52, John uses the aorist tense and thus uses the word phago. In John 6:54, John switches to the present tense which necessitates the use of the word trogo.

According to Thayer's Greek Leixon, trogo means:

τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.): ἄγρωστιν, of mules, Homer, Odyssey 6, 90, and often in other writers of animals feeding; also of men from Herodotus down (as σῦκα, Herodotus 1, 71; βότρυς, Aristophanes eqq. 1077; blackberries, the Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 [ET] (where see Harnack, Cunningham, Müller); κρόμυον, μετά δεῖπνον, Xenophon, conv. 4, 8); universally, to eat: absolutely, (δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί, we mess together, Polybius 32, 9, 9) joined with πίνειν, Matthew 24:38 (so also Demosthenes, p. 402, 21; Plutarch, symp. 1, 1, 2; Ev. Nicod. c. 15, p. 640, Thilo edition (p. 251 Tdf. edition)); τόν ἄρτον, John 13:18 (see ἄρτος 2 and ἐσθίω b.); figuratively, John 6:58; τήν σάρκα, the 'flesh' of Christ (see σάρξ, 1), John 6:54, 56f.

According to Strongs, the word phago means:

A primary verb (used as an alternate of esthio in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively) -- eat, meat.

Both refer to the act of eating. Both can be used literally or figuratively. Only trogo is used in the present tense as in John 6:54. The switch in words is due to the switch in tense, not a change in meaning.

 

[Valletta]

I recognize figurative language when I see it. I see no reason to take Jesus' words here literally and doing so makes no sense. Besides, if partaking in the Lord's flesh and blood is necessary for eternal life then what about Catholics who are baptized but not yet had first communion? Do they have no life since they have not eaten Jesus' flesh and drank His blood? According to your interpretation, Jesus said unless you eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, you have no part in Him. So no one is saved until after Catholic communion?

The meanings of the words are not that different. Both refer to eating. One is more descriptive but looking at Strong's definition, note this:

For the word phago:
Usage: I eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does); used only in fut. and 2nd aor. tenses. That is what I referred to in my previous post. In John 6:52, John uses the aorist tense and thus uses the word phago. In John 6:54, John switches to the present tense which necessitates the use of the word trogo.

According to Thayer's Greek Leixon, trogo means:

τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.): ἄγρωστιν, of mules, Homer, Odyssey 6, 90, and often in other writers of animals feeding; also of men from Herodotus down (as σῦκα, Herodotus 1, 71; βότρυς, Aristophanes eqq. 1077; blackberries, the Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 [ET] (where see Harnack, Cunningham, Müller); κρόμυον, μετά δεῖπνον, Xenophon, conv. 4, 8); universally, to eat: absolutely, (δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί, we mess together, Polybius 32, 9, 9) joined with πίνειν, Matthew 24:38 (so also Demosthenes, p. 402, 21; Plutarch, symp. 1, 1, 2; Ev. Nicod. c. 15, p. 640, Thilo edition (p. 251 Tdf. edition)); τόν ἄρτον, John 13:18 (see ἄρτος 2 and ἐσθίω b.); figuratively, John 6:58; τήν σάρκα, the 'flesh' of Christ (see σάρξ, 1), John 6:54, 56f.

According to Strongs, the word phago means:

A primary verb (used as an alternate of esthio in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively) -- eat, meat.

Both refer to the act of eating. Both can be used literally or figuratively.

Jesus Denounces Scribes and Pharisees​

Matthew 23 2-6 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries[b] broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. RSVCE

As I said, trogo means to chew or gnaw. Jesus was more emphatic. You can look elsewhere in the NT to see how trogo is used:

Matthew 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark RSVCE

John 13:18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ RSVCE

 

[JoeT]

I am new to Catholicism and I am looking for answers. Can you give me some verse's that says Mary is the only Virgin that God chooses.
I am on my phone so I am slow.

What is meant by "new to Catholicism". Does it mean you've have never been introduced to Catholicism or that you've entered the Catholic Church as a catechumen being a new Catholic?

God chose for himself a mother pure of heart mind and soul. She is to become the very mother of the Personification of Word, Christ. Nothing profane comes from the Word and Word is not issued out from the profane. Nor will the Word sup at pap of the profane. The very flesh born by Christ comes from His Mother Mary. The Christ Child was nursed, and educated by His mother, Mary. He laid in her arms lovingly raised in His faith. Growing into a young man Christ confides His desires, successes, and failures with His mother, allowing the loving guidance of Mary. John Cardinal Newman writes,

So then is it in the case of the soul; but, as regards the Blessed Mary, a further thought suggests itself. She has no chance place in the Divine Dispensation; the Word of God did not merely come to her and go from her; He did not pass through her, as He visits us in Holy Communion. It was no heavenly body which the Eternal Son {369} assumed, fashioned by the angels, and brought down to this lower world: no; He imbibed, He absorbed into His Divine Person, her blood and the substance of her flesh; by becoming man of her, He received her lineaments and features, as the appropriate character in which He was to manifest Himself to mankind. The child is like the parent, and we may well suppose that by His likeness to her was manifested her relationship to Him. Her sanctity comes, not only of her being His mother, but also of His being her son. "If the first fruit be holy," says St. Paul, "the mass also is holy; if the mass be holy, so are the branches." And hence the titles which we are accustomed to give her. He is the Wisdom of God, she therefore is the Seat of Wisdom; His Presence is Heaven, she therefore is the Gate of Heaven; He is infinite Mercy, she then is the Mother of Mercy. She is the Mother of "fair love and fear, and knowledge and holy hope"; is it wonderful then that she has left behind her in the Church below "an odor like cinnamon and balm, and sweetness like to choice myrrh"? [John Henry Newman, On the Fitness of the Glories of Mary, discourse 18]

Mary was born with the gift of justification, virginity, which remained inviolate ante partum, in partu, et post partum.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus Denounces Scribes and Pharisees​

Matthew 23 2-6 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries[b] broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. RSVCE

As I said, trogo means to chew or gnaw. Jesus was more emphatic. You can look elsewhere in the NT to see how trogo is used:

Matthew 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark RSVCE

John 13:18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ RSVCE

In the passage you cite, Jesus is not giving a new teaching. He is commenting on the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees. It was when He taught the crowds new teaching that He used parables.

Back to the words for eat, phago has no present tense. It is not an option to use it in the present tense in NT Greek. You had to switch words. Since they are synonyms it is a logical word to switch to.

 

[DJWhalen]

What is meant by "new to Catholicism". Does it mean you've have never been introduced to Catholicism or that you've entered the Catholic Church as a catechumen being a new Catholic?

God chose for himself a mother pure of heart mind and soul. She is to become the very mother of the Personification of Word, Christ. Nothing profane comes from the Word and Word is not issued out from the profane. Nor will the Word sup at pap of the profane. The very flesh born by Christ comes from His Mother Mary. The Christ Child was nursed, and educated by His mother, Mary. He laid in her arms lovingly raised in His faith. Growing into a young man Christ confides His desires, successes, and failures with His mother, allowing the loving guidance of Mary. John Cardinal Newman writes,

So then is it in the case of the soul; but, as regards the Blessed Mary, a further thought suggests itself. She has no chance place in the Divine Dispensation; the Word of God did not merely come to her and go from her; He did not pass through her, as He visits us in Holy Communion. It was no heavenly body which the Eternal Son {369} assumed, fashioned by the angels, and brought down to this lower world: no; He imbibed, He absorbed into His Divine Person, her blood and the substance of her flesh; by becoming man of her, He received her lineaments and features, as the appropriate character in which He was to manifest Himself to mankind. The child is like the parent, and we may well suppose that by His likeness to her was manifested her relationship to Him. Her sanctity comes, not only of her being His mother, but also of His being her son. "If the first fruit be holy," says St. Paul, "the mass also is holy; if the mass be holy, so are the branches." And hence the titles which we are accustomed to give her. He is the Wisdom of God, she therefore is the Seat of Wisdom; His Presence is Heaven, she therefore is the Gate of Heaven; He is infinite Mercy, she then is the Mother of Mercy. She is the Mother of "fair love and fear, and knowledge and holy hope"; is it wonderful then that she has left behind her in the Church below "an odor like cinnamon and balm, and sweetness like to choice myrrh"? [John Henry Newman, On the Fitness of the Glories of Mary, discourse 18]

Mary was born with the gift of justification, virginity, which remained inviolate ante partum, in partu, et post partum.

JoeT

I didn't go to church but I did read about it to a degree. I had a problem with Mary being always a virgin. And Jesus had half brothers and sisters, when Jesus died the curtain that separate priest and people was torn in half from top to bottom no need for a priest.

 

[BobRyan]

I would suggest the issue is that Scripture nowhere teaches Mary was immaculately conceived nor was it necessary

true.

 

[JoeT]

I didn't go to church but I did read about it to a degree. I had a problem with Mary being always a virgin. And Jesus had half brothers and sisters, when Jesus died the curtain that separate priest and people was torn in half from top to bottom no need for a priest.

Most Protestants do have problem from Mary. The Catholic Marian doctrines play havoc on the Protestant paradigm as she would tend to 'magnify' our Lord.

Most Catholics don't believe Jesus had half brothers and sisters. Scriptures do not tell of any vaginal kinship of Jesus. Brother (adelphos) has several meanings in Greek,

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

(source: Blue letter Bible.)

There are a few Catholics that hold Joseph may have had children from a former wife, but even that isn't supported directly from Scriptures. Test yourself, find an individual other than Christ that is said to be "son" or "daughter" of Mary or Joseph. I contend all of those said to be brothers of Christ have other mothers and fathers.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Most Protestants do have problem from Mary. The Catholic Marian doctrines play havoc on the Protestant paradigm as she would tend to 'magnify' our Lord.

Most Catholics don't believe Jesus had half brothers and sisters. Scriptures do not tell of any vaginal kinship of Jesus. Brother (adelphos) has several meanings in Greek,

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

(source: Blue letter Bible.)

There are a few Catholics that hold Joseph may have had children from a former wife, but even that isn't supported directly from Scriptures. Test yourself, find an individual other than Christ that is said to be "son" or "daughter" of Mary or Joseph. I contend all of those said to be brothers of Christ have other mothers and fathers.

JoeT

This has been debated on here but the natural reading of the text is that Mary and Joseph had other children. Catholics look for alternative explanations because Mary having other children violates their belief that the womb that bore the Savior would someone be diminished by later having ordinary children. They claim Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity even though there is no support for that in Scripture. It is all an attempt to put Mary on a pedestal. They want you to believe Mary was always traveling around with a group of Jesus' cousins.

There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having other children after Jesus. That was normal and natural and why would God not want His Son raised in a family with siblings? It would not have demeaned Mary in any way. Gabriel did not instruct Mary to remain a virgin. What you have is a manmade presupposition that Mary remained a virgin from which Catholics look for ambiguities that *could* allow their interpretation to be true without proving it. It would be like me saying my brother has children and then someone arguing that "children" just means young people and my saying that does not prove he had vaginal children by his wife. These could be adopted children or neighborhood children who like to hang out at his house. The plain meaning of my words would be clear to most *unless* I qualified them explicitly by saying something like "my brother has adopted children." The Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is of human origin and their efforts to find it in Scripture are forced and an argument from silence of alternative meanings of words that possibly could mean something else. I see nothing explicit in Scripture that says Mary remained a virgin. If Scripture must spell out explicitly that Jesus had vaginal siblings than it better spell out explicitly that Mary remained a virgin and it does not.

 

[jas3]

This has been debated on here but the natural reading of the text is that Mary and Joseph had other children. Catholics look for alternative explanations because Mary having other children violates their belief that the womb that bore the Savior would someone be diminished by later having ordinary children. They claim Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity even though there is no support for that in Scripture. It is all an attempt to put Mary on a pedestal. They want you to believe Mary was always traveling around with a group of Jesus' cousins.

We went back and forth on this earlier, but one thing I didn't bring up is that on top of Catholics and traditional Protestants rejecting your reading, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox also reject that reading. So it doesn't make much sense to say that the reading of a subset of Protestants that is universally rejected otherwise is the natural one.

As for your assertion that Catholics (and Orthodox and traditional Protestants) need to produce explicit evidence from Scripture, we have also gone back and forth on that. The evidence is there, but you choose an alternative interpretation that imputes motivations and thoughts to people, which are entirely your own invention and can't be substantiated with Scripture. The simplest explanation is the one that requires the least addition to the text.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

We went back and forth on this earlier, but one thing I didn't bring up is that on top of Catholics and traditional Protestants rejecting your reading, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox also reject that reading. So it doesn't make much sense to say that the reading of a subset of Protestants that is universally rejected otherwise is the natural one.

As for your assertion that Catholics (and Orthodox and traditional Protestants) need to produce explicit evidence from Scripture, we have also gone back and forth on that. The evidence is there, but you choose an alternative interpretation that imputes motivations and thoughts to people, which are entirely your own invention and can't be substantiated with Scripture. The simplest explanation is the one that requires the least addition to the text.

I don't see where any additions to the text are necessary. The natural reading is that Jesus had siblings. It is also the simplest explanation.

 

[jas3]

I don't see where any additions to the text are necessary. The natural reading is that Jesus had siblings. It is also the simplest explanation.

I'm referring to this:

While this is pure conjecture, I don't know that all of Jesus' siblings were believers at least not until after his resurrection. Mary had been a part of the disciples who followed Jesus and lived in community together. Jesus knew Mary would want to still be a part of that. He had left her to one of his siblings, it might have taken her away from that community. Instead of being with the disciples, she might have been living with one of her other children in some town but not with the disciples. John, being an Apostle, would be in the community and Jesus and John were very close. I think Jesus put Mary's spiritual care ahead of family ties.

Sometimes those closest to us are the last to believe. We are too familiar to them. Assuming Jesus did not show his divine abilities prior to Cana, his siblings might now have grasped who he was. To them, he was their brother. Very little was written for us about Jesus' childhood. Nothing though indicates he revealed who he was prior to the start of his public ministry. I suspect even Mary and Joseph did not fully grasp the reality of who Jesus was at first. They believed by faith but until Jesus began his public ministry, his miraculous abilities remained veiled. We know Joseph died sometime after Jesus was 12. Jesus no doubt could have healed him and prevented his death but that was not God's will. His powers remained veiled until it was time. We don't know who all Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, but perhaps his siblings were among them. That may have been the turning point of faith for them.

Your reading of John's Gospel is reliant on conjecture about what people believed, what other people's motivations were, and what Jesus did that isn't recorded in Scripture. There's not much to talk about if you're just going to keep insisting that this is the simplest reading without accounting for anything else that has been said.

 

[JoeT]

I don't see where any additions to the text are necessary. The natural reading is that Jesus had siblings. It is also the simplest explanation.

There is one problem with the 'brother' assertion; there is no verse that provides a name of a particular person, other than Jesus Christ, that is stated to be the son or daughter of Joseph and/or Mary. According to the paradigm of 'bible alone' it must be in the bible to be true. Yet the Protestant paradigm allows for 'brothers' of the type previously noted.

Let's step through the gaggle of Christ’s brothers and see if we can spot a vaginal relationship kin, i.e. Christ’s siblings having the same mother.?

1. St. Peter, ST. Andrew, St. Simon (called ‘Zelotes’) and St. Philip (4 Apostles):

St. Peter (a.k.a. Simon, or Cephas) and Andrew were siblings, sons of Jona (Johannes). Philip on the other hand came from the same town but not related by his parents; there may have been some distant family relationship. Knowing the lineage of these we can rightly say that these are not siblings of Jesus.

Nope! no brother here

2. St. James & St. John Zebedee(2 Apostles):

St. James the Greater and St. John — sons of Zebedee and Salome, Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1 St. John knows the high-priest (John 18:16) and is given the care of Mother of Jesus John 19:27. St. James the Greater was at the Transfiguration Mark 9:1; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28, and the Agony in Gethsemani, Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33. Martyred around 44 A.D., Acts 12:1-2. James the son of Zebedee was killed early in the Acts of the Apostles (Cf. Acts 12:2), consequently this isn't the same James as Gal 1:19 as he was dead by the time St. Paul reported to Jerusalem for orders.

Nope! no blood kin here!

Their mother was Salome the daughter of the high priest and the pious women who ministered Christ (cf. Matthew 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1). It’s Salome that wanted her sons to sit on the right hand of Christ’s throne. (Matthew 20:21).

Nope! no blood kin here!. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Greater

3. Matthew , Jude and James The Less (3 Apostles):

Matthew and James, the sons of Alpheus — Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. James the Less is the one referred to as ‘brother of the Lord’ and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. This can be shown in Gal 1:19 where Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter. Peter is not available, he only saw the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the ‘Brother of the Lord’. This James can’t be both the sibling of Jesus and the son of Alpheus.

Matthew, the son of Alpheus; Mark 2:14; Matthew 9:9 a Galilean who collected taxes at Capharnaum for Herod Antipas.

Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus ) — Jude 1:1. "Brother of James" called so because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13. Being the brother of James, Jude can’t be the sibling of Jesus.

[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Matthew
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Less]

Nope! no blood kin here!

4. James and Joseph (or Joses) (2 Apostles):

James, Joseph (or Joses) sons of Cleopas — Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56 the sons of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25). "Maria Cleophć" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas." Consequently we can conclude that these two were not siblings of Jesus. SJ Prat, in his book Jesus Christ, suggests that this Mary is the second wife of Cleophas. We find that these, James and Joseph, are not brothers of Christ. This James is James the "little" often confused with James the "less"

[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord]

Nope! no blood kin here!

5. ST. Bartholomew, St. Thomas (2 Apostles):

St. Bartholomew many think he can be identified as Nathaniel the friend of Philip, John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14. St. Thomas we know very little outside the Scriptures. We do know that he is the ‘show me’ Saint. These two Apostles are unrelated to Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Bartholomew
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nathanael]

Nope! no blood kin here!

6. Judas Iscariot (1 Apostle):

Finally, we have Judas, the Apostle that betrayed our Lord. He was the only Apostle that wasn’t from Galilee. Being from the town of ‘Kerioth’ Judas can’t be a sibling of Jesus. [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot].

Nope! no blood kin here! The absence of somebody being called the “son(s) of Mary and Joseph” is now very conspicuous. Therefore according to the oft quoted adage, if it ain't in the bible it ain't so, there is no blood kin here. Boy, this is hard to find uterine kin of Jesus Christ. It takes a long stretch of the imagination to create such siblings of Christ.

Listed are 14 men all of whom are called ‘brethren of the Lord’ (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5 ) i.e. in the same special way that The Twelve were referred to as ‘brothers’, yet we found that none of them are siblings of Jesus. By some accounts James the less, James the little, Joses , Jude and Simon, and unnamed male siblings along with unnamed sisters; the sum of which would make too large a brood for a single woman to bear, according to some a litter of 26. If everyone mentioned as ‘brethren’ or sister’ was a sibling this would make the Blessed Mary uber-mom, worthy of honor in its own right. Based on this same literal reading of the Gospels and the Epistles, we’d need to add St. Paul as 'the brother of the Lord' along with others referred to in Scripture as ‘brother’ of Jesus.

But let's be freethinkers, and we know that freethinkers think and do what they will. Assign the honor of Uber-mom to Mary, then would at least a few of her children be demigods? With a brood that large it would be logical she could produce more than one God. And to compound this freethinking, why didn't one of the demigods take over His Kingdom on earth?

We’ve already discussed the meaning of “adelphos” in some detail above. By becoming adopted sons of God, we become spiritual bothers of Christ (Cf. John 1:12) – many refer to this as “the Good News”. 'Adelphos' is used 400 or more times in the King James' Greek with covering all the various meanings. Consequently, to validate 'brothers' of Jesus in scripture we need a lot more than 'adelphos' applied to an individual. If Mary is to issue the Messiah according to prophecy which of the 26, or so, sons and daughters are the semi-divine person. Jesus didn't have bothers or half-brothers.

What happen? No brothers are left behind?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There is one problem with the 'brother' assertion; there is no verse that provides a name of a particular person, other than Jesus Christ, that is stated to be the son or daughter of Joseph and/or Mary. According to the paradigm of 'bible alone' it must be in the bible to be true. Yet the Protestant paradigm allows for 'brothers' of the type previously noted.

Let's step through the gaggle of Christ’s brothers and see if we can spot a vaginal relationship kin, i.e. Christ’s siblings having the same mother.?

1. St. Peter, ST. Andrew, St. Simon (called ‘Zelotes’) and St. Philip (4 Apostles):

St. Peter (a.k.a. Simon, or Cephas) and Andrew were siblings, sons of Jona (Johannes). Philip on the other hand came from the same town but not related by his parents; there may have been some distant family relationship. Knowing the lineage of these we can rightly say that these are not siblings of Jesus.

Nope! no brother here

2. St. James & St. John Zebedee(2 Apostles):

St. James the Greater and St. John — sons of Zebedee and Salome, Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1 St. John knows the high-priest (John 18:16) and is given the care of Mother of Jesus John 19:27. St. James the Greater was at the Transfiguration Mark 9:1; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28, and the Agony in Gethsemani, Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33. Martyred around 44 A.D., Acts 12:1-2. James the son of Zebedee was killed early in the Acts of the Apostles (Cf. Acts 12:2), consequently this isn't the same James as Gal 1:19 as he was dead by the time St. Paul reported to Jerusalem for orders.

Nope! no blood kin here!

Their mother was Salome the daughter of the high priest and the pious women who ministered Christ (cf. Matthew 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1). It’s Salome that wanted her sons to sit on the right hand of Christ’s throne. (Matthew 20:21).

Nope! no blood kin here!. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Greater

3. Matthew , Jude and James The Less (3 Apostles):

Matthew and James, the sons of Alpheus — Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. James the Less is the one referred to as ‘brother of the Lord’ and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. This can be shown in Gal 1:19 where Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter. Peter is not available, he only saw the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the ‘Brother of the Lord’. This James can’t be both the sibling of Jesus and the son of Alpheus.

Matthew, the son of Alpheus; Mark 2:14; Matthew 9:9 a Galilean who collected taxes at Capharnaum for Herod Antipas.

Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus ) — Jude 1:1. "Brother of James" called so because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13. Being the brother of James, Jude can’t be the sibling of Jesus.

[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Matthew
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Less]

Nope! no blood kin here!

4. James and Joseph (or Joses) (2 Apostles):

James, Joseph (or Joses) sons of Cleopas — Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56 the sons of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25). "Maria Cleophć" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas." Consequently we can conclude that these two were not siblings of Jesus. SJ Prat, in his book Jesus Christ, suggests that this Mary is the second wife of Cleophas. We find that these, James and Joseph, are not brothers of Christ. This James is James the "little" often confused with James the "less"

[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord]

Nope! no blood kin here!

5. ST. Bartholomew, St. Thomas (2 Apostles):

St. Bartholomew many think he can be identified as Nathaniel the friend of Philip, John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14. St. Thomas we know very little outside the Scriptures. We do know that he is the ‘show me’ Saint. These two Apostles are unrelated to Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Bartholomew
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nathanael]

Nope! no blood kin here!

6. Judas Iscariot (1 Apostle):

Finally, we have Judas, the Apostle that betrayed our Lord. He was the only Apostle that wasn’t from Galilee. Being from the town of ‘Kerioth’ Judas can’t be a sibling of Jesus. [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot].

Nope! no blood kin here! The absence of somebody being called the “son(s) of Mary and Joseph” is now very conspicuous. Therefore according to the oft quoted adage, if it ain't in the bible it ain't so, there is no blood kin here. Boy, this is hard to find uterine kin of Jesus Christ. It takes a long stretch of the imagination to create such siblings of Christ.

Listed are 14 men all of whom are called ‘brethren of the Lord’ (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5 ) i.e. in the same special way that The Twelve were referred to as ‘brothers’, yet we found that none of them are siblings of Jesus. By some accounts James the less, James the little, Joses , Jude and Simon, and unnamed male siblings along with unnamed sisters; the sum of which would make too large a brood for a single woman to bear, according to some a litter of 26. If everyone mentioned as ‘brethren’ or sister’ was a sibling this would make the Blessed Mary uber-mom, worthy of honor in its own right. Based on this same literal reading of the Gospels and the Epistles, we’d need to add St. Paul as 'the brother of the Lord' along with others referred to in Scripture as ‘brother’ of Jesus.

But let's be freethinkers, and we know that freethinkers think and do what they will. Assign the honor of Uber-mom to Mary, then would at least a few of her children be demigods? With a brood that large it would be logical she could produce more than one God. And to compound this freethinking, why didn't one of the demigods take over His Kingdom on earth?

We’ve already discussed the meaning of “adelphos” in some detail above. By becoming adopted sons of God, we become spiritual bothers of Christ (Cf. John 1:12) – many refer to this as “the Good News”. 'Adelphos' is used 400 or more times in the King James' Greek with covering all the various meanings. Consequently, to validate 'brothers' of Jesus in scripture we need a lot more than 'adelphos' applied to an individual. If Mary is to issue the Messiah according to prophecy which of the 26, or so, sons and daughters are the semi-divine person. Jesus didn't have bothers or half-brothers.

What happen? No brothers are left behind?

JoeT

You are assuming James "the brother of the Lord" is the same James as "James the son of Alpheus." Just like today, some names were common and one cannot assume two people with the same name are one and the same. Just look at how many Marys are found in the NT. It is also not necessary for uterine siblings to be mentioned by name to count.

I don't know who is positing a "litter of 26" but most estimates I have seen are 6-8 which is not an unreasonable number of children for Mary to have birthed. Just because some first names correspond to first names of others does not prove they are the same people. When Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters came to him when he was teaching at the Synagogue, the natural reading is that they were his siblings. Why would Mary be coming with a group of Jesus' cousins? Not that she would travel alone but why only cousins and why a group of them?

Yes, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and might refer to someone as our brother or our sister who is not one by blood. But when the people of Jesus' hometown doubted Jesus and said "are not these ... his brother and his sisters" (paraphrasing), it seems obvious they were referring to siblings. These people were not believers. They would not use a phrase of "brothers and sisters" in a spiritual context. Their doubt was because they had seen Jesus grow up in their community. They knew his parents and siblings. How could he be the Messiah? These were not spiritual brothers and sisters they were referring to but actual siblings. Thus their doubt.

Where you come up with dem-gods is beyond me. Jesus was the virgin-born son as prophesized. His siblings were normal humans. There is no reason for them to be demi-gods. Why you went through all the Apostles is puzzling to me. No one I know of has ever suggested any of the Apostles were siblings of Jesus.

The focus of the NT is on Jesus, not his siblings. Other than a reference to James, and a few other names, we are not told details about them. It is not pertinent to the purpose of the NT.

We are having this debate as it's critical to your theology that Mary was "ever virgin." Biblically, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change who Jesus was. It doesn't change the fact of His virgin birth. It in no way diminishes Mary if she went on to have other children. Had she remained a virgin, it would be fine by me. I just don't believe she did.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I'm referring to this:

Your reading of John's Gospel is reliant on conjecture about what people believed, what other people's motivations were, and what Jesus did that isn't recorded in Scripture. There's not much to talk about if you're just going to keep insisting that this is the simplest reading without accounting for anything else that has been said.

Granted, that is conjecture but based on the natural reading that Jesus had siblings.

 

[JoeT]

You are assuming James "the brother of the Lord" is the same James as "James the son of Alpheus." Just like today, some names were common and one cannot assume two people with the same name are one and the same. Just look at how many Marys are found in the NT. It is also not necessary for uterine siblings to be mentioned by name to count.

I don't know who is positing a "litter of 26" but most estimates I have seen are 6-8 which is not an unreasonable number of children for Mary to have birthed. Just because some first names correspond to first names of others does not prove they are the same people. When Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters came to him when he was teaching at the Synagogue, the natural reading is that they were his siblings. Why would Mary be coming with a group of Jesus' cousins? Not that she would travel alone but why only cousins and why a group of them?

Yes, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and might refer to someone as our brother or our sister who is not one by blood. But when the people of Jesus' hometown doubted Jesus and said "are not these ... his brother and his sisters" (paraphrasing), it seems obvious they were referring to siblings. These people were not believers. They would not use a phrase of "brothers and sisters" in a spiritual context. Their doubt was because they had seen Jesus grow up in their community. They knew his parents and siblings. How could he be the Messiah? These were not spiritual brothers and sisters they were referring to but actual siblings. Thus their doubt.

Where you come up with dem-gods is beyond me. Jesus was the virgin-born son as prophesized. His siblings were normal humans. There is no reason for them to be demi-gods. Why you went through all the Apostles is puzzling to me. No one I know of has ever suggested any of the Apostles were siblings of Jesus.

The focus of the NT is on Jesus, not his siblings. Other than a reference to James, and a few other names, we are not told details about them. It is not pertinent to the purpose of the NT.

We are having this debate as it's critical to your theology that Mary was "ever virgin." Biblically, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change who Jesus was. It doesn't change the fact of His virgin birth. It in no way diminishes Mary if she went on to have other children. Had she remained a virgin, it would be fine by me. I just don't believe she did.

As I have explained in other posts the "brethren" or "brothers" are either spiritual followers or family relationship, possibly both. Let’s look at Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him." [Mark 6:3]. Let's look under the superficial of what's being said.

1) “Is not this the carpenter”; a reference to Jesus Christ who now controls His segregate father’s estate, which would have included the trade of carpentry. Jesus Christ is the Master of the house as the only surviving son of Joseph. If Joseph had been alive, Jesus would be referred to as an apprentice. At this point He is the family bread winner.​

​

2) “the son of Mary”; not a normal identification unless Joseph was dead. Mary would be a widow and her socio-economic status would be rather low. A piece of information we can use in another argument at the foot of the cross.​

​

3) “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon”: those with this Mary is the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. If it’s not the carpenter who is there brother. then this Mary is not mother of Jesus, who is she? Matthew 13:55 has a very similar list, “brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:" In some translations Mark uses “Jose” instead of Matthew’s “Joseph”, both come from the Hebrew “Yoshef” and as such are one and the same person.​

​

4) “are not also his sisters here with us”: This would suggest that the sisters were unexpected perhaps lived in another village.​

Elsewhere in scripture, at the foot of the cross we find a“Mary” who is mother of, “James”, “Joseph (Jose)”, and “Salome” [Cf. Mark 15:40] In Mark 16:1 we find “Mary the mother of James, and Salome”. This would be the same "Mary" that is mother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon. This Mary is beginning to attract attention. St. John however sheds a bit of light on this inconspicuous Mary; “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's , sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." [John 19:25]. Cleophas is the husband of this Mary, sister of Mary. Side note: Matthew most often refers to Mary mother of God as "his mother." We don't see the refrain here.

We can draw the following conclusions with conviction. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are brothers whose mother is Mary. Mary is clearly identified as the sister of the mother of Jesus whose husband is Cleophas or Clopas depending on the translation. James and Joseph are disciples, while Jude and Simon are non-believers but nonetheless family of Jesus Christ, cousins.

Consequently, Scripture identifies the brothers and their mother and father, the sister of Mary whose name is also Mary and Cleopas. Thus these individuals are not blood related siblings. We can combine this with the absence of a direct statement parental relationship. Jesus Christ was the only Son of Mary and Joseph.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I have explained in other posts the "brethren" or "brothers" are either spiritual followers or family relationship, possibly both. Let’s look at Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him." [Mark 6:3]. Let's look under the superficial of what's being said.

1) “Is not this the carpenter”; a reference to Jesus Christ who now controls His segregate father’s estate, which would have included the trade of carpentry. Jesus Christ is the Master of the house as the only surviving son of Joseph. If Joseph had been alive, Jesus would be referred to as an apprentice. At this point He is the family bread winner.​

​

This does NOT imply Jesus was the only surviving son of Joseph. It was customary in Jewish families (and most families until modern times) to consider the eldest son the main heir and successor to the father. Jesus would have been the eldest or firstborn son. He could still have younger siblings and be "the carpenter" and the main breadwinner.

​

​

2) “the son of Mary”; not a normal identification unless Joseph was dead. Mary would be a widow and her socio-economic status would be rather low. A piece of information we can use in another argument at the foot of the cross.

Since we have no further reference to Joseph, after his mention when Jesus was 12, we can assume he died sometime between then and these events so of course Mary was a widow by this time.

​

​

3) “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon”: those with this Mary is the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. If it’s not the carpenter who is there brother. then this Mary is not mother of Jesus, who is she? Matthew 13:55 has a very similar list, “brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:" In some translations Mark uses “Jose” instead of Matthew’s “Joseph”, both come from the Hebrew “Yoshef” and as such are one and the same person.

This is based on your assumption in #1 above. "The carpenter" could have siblings. So Jesus could have siblings named James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude." These were common names and it is not proof they are other than Mary's children.

​

​

4) “are not also his sisters here with us”: This would suggest that the sisters were unexpected perhaps lived in another village.

Where they lived at this time is not an issue. The townspeople identified them as Jesus' sisters. Their objection is that they have known Jesus, his parents, and his siblings since his youth. How could this hometown boy be the Messiah? To their blind eyes, he seemed too ordinary. Just another kid from the town. It seemed preposterous to them that Jesus could be the long-awaited Messiah. Surely his life up until that point would have been noteworthy and extraordinary. How does one go from being a carpenter's son to the Messiah?

Elsewhere in scripture, at the foot of the cross we find a“Mary” who is mother of, “James”, “Joseph (Jose)”, and “Salome” [Cf. Mark 15:40] In Mark 16:1 we find “Mary the mother of James, and Salome”. This would be the same "Mary" that is mother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon. This Mary is beginning to attract attention. St. John however sheds a bit of light on this inconspicuous Mary; “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's , sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." [John 19:25]. Cleophas is the husband of this Mary, sister of Mary. Side note: Matthew most often refers to Mary mother of God as "his mother." We don't see the refrain here.

It is virtually unheard of, even in those days, for two sisters (or brothers) to have the same name. No parents would name two daughters both Mary. This Mary was not related to Jesus' Mary. She may have had overlap in names of children. Even among the Apostles there were duplicate names. This seemed to be a common and confusing issue just as we see several women named Mary. It happens even today. I am named Bob. My step-father was named Bob and had a son named Bob. At the same time, I had a father-in-law named Bob. Good thing I did not name my son Bob!

We can draw the following conclusions with conviction. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are brothers whose mother is Mary. Mary is clearly identified as the sister of the mother of Jesus whose husband is Cleophas or Clopas depending on the translation. James and Joseph are disciples, while Jude and Simon are non-believers but nonetheless family of Jesus Christ, cousins.

Consequently, Scripture identifies the brothers and their mother and father, the sister of Mary whose name is also Mary and Cleopas. Thus these individuals are not blood related siblings. We can combine this with the absence of a direct statement parental relationship. Jesus Christ was the only Son of Mary and Joseph.

I, and many others, do not share your conclusions with conviction. What you argue, why possible, does not strike me as plausible. If you were not already biased by the fact that you believe Mary to have been ever-virgin you might not be making such arguments. As I have stated before, this line of argument is only important to Catholics *maybe Orthodox...I forget). While I do believe Mary and Joseph had other children (and Jesus had half-siblings), it doesn't change anything for me if they never had other children. Mary could have been unable to conceive no matter how much they tried. They could have decided she remain a virgin though I see no evidence for that. So what? Changes nothing of importance to me. Only Catholics are passionate about the belief that Mary remained a virgin. To my mind, it would not make her holier or more special to have remained a virgin. Nor would her having other children have lowered her in any sense or desecrated the womb that bore the Savior. At no time in Scripture was she commanded not to have other children. Why would Gabriel not have instructed her so, for our record, if that was God's will? It would otherwise be normal, natural, and in keeping with God's will for a married couple to have children if they could. I would have expected Gabriel to have so instructed both Mary and Joseph (or Joseph in his dream) if that was what God demanded but yet no such thing is mentioned. We are only told they refrained from sex until Jesus was born. Nothing is said, one way or the other, about after Jesus was born. Thus there was no command for them to refrain from sex after Jesus' birth. We have no explicit statement by Mary that she intends to remain a virgin for life. No Biblical writer states that Mary remained a virgin for life. I for one believe that had other children and see no problem with that. Believe as you will. The point is not important to my faith or salvation.

JoeT

 

[Valletta]

In the passage you cite, Jesus is not giving a new teaching. He is commenting on the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees. It was when He taught the crowds new teaching that He used parables.

Back to the words for eat, phago has no present tense. It is not an option to use it in the present tense in NT Greek. You had to switch words. Since they are synonyms it is a logical word to switch to.

You seem to keep changing the standards. Now it has to be a "new teaching." Are you saying that Jesus was providing an old teaching about the scribes and Pharisees? Realize too that Jesus went from town to town and undoubtedly repeated parables.
No, trogo is a completely different word and the writer is in no way forced to use it. You see, “I eat” is irregular, that means different stems are used. Since you previously quoted Strong’s I looked it up for you, phágō is reference G5315. Note that entry refers to Strong’s #2068 which is the word “esthio.” “Esthio” is used for the present tense. It says “Relation: strengthened for a primary edo (to eat); used only in certain tenses, the rest being supplied by G5315”

Again, trogo is a completely different word. You used Strong’s for your example, now you wish to depart from Strong’s.

I also did not get to Augustine, here are some of his quotes from his sermons:

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

You’re wrong about Athanasius as well:

"You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected." (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)