www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings GOSPEL OF MATTHEW CHAP 2 VS 18-25

-----------and, if Our Blessed Mother had other children, why was it necessary for Our Lord to give her over to the care of St. John at the foot of the Cross??? If she had other children...then THEY would naturally have taken her into their homes!

In Him Who calls us,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Wild Goose,

Please forgive my opening statement to you in my previous post. It was not charitable.

We Orthodox get very upset when our Lady is spoken about in a disrespectful manner. Please be respectful of that.

Bowing to the image of Christ in you,
Alice

I have to keep one thing in mind, when I encounter some views that essentially originated in Protestantism. Protestants, for any practical purpose, hold that Christ came in the 16th century, and that the church and its teachings originated from often inaccurate Bible translations produced then. For some Protestants, that moves to the 19th century when their churches were established. Usually ignored is the 1500 years of Christian belief that existed before the founders of their religion came on the scene.The Church, it's teachings and traditions, as well as, the scriptures it produced existed well before the 16th century - or 19th if you prefer.

I don't give a rat's rear end that the Gospels do not say that the Holy Theotokos - or any specific part of her - is blessed.

WG - you aren't winning a lot of friends here with that kind of talk. Tread carefully.

Now, maybe, if you did a little bit of research, and would realize that in Aramaic, a Semitic language, "cousin" is indistinguishable from "brother" or "sister", then maybe, you would understand better. The ancient Isrealites lived in tribes - or clans, - large, extended families. The Syriac Catholic Church still uses Aramaic in its liturgy. Betcha didn't know that.

You discount that many Orthodox have held those Scripture passages to be interpreted as children of an earlier marriage of St. Joseph.

Maria is the New Ark of the New Covenant. She gave birth to Jesus Christ, our Lord. Maria faithfully accepted the role God had for her, and accepted all the hurts, pains, and lonelieness that went along with it. As Simeon prophesized, "Your heart will be pierced, as with a sword, so the thoughts of many will be laid bare".

You have certianly laid your thoughts bare.

jw, Amen brother! You go dude!



Your poor brother,
+Fr. Gregory

My hackles get up when someone blashphemes the Mother of Our Lord. East and West - we know, understand, and realize the Theotokos' role in Jesus� salvific work.

It is one thing to approach from a position of misunderstanding - or even ignorance. I realize that many faithful, God-fearing Protestants simply do not understand the love we have for the Theotokos.

But, to go on rambling, and to blatantly ignore what is meant in Scripture - this is unacceptable. It was the Church - East and West - that compiled the canon of Sacred Scripture and it is the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) who is uniquely qualified to interpret Sacred Scripture.

If one disagrees, one is free to leave, but don't pick a fight.

Hello,
A few months ago, reading over all the past issues of the CNEWA magazine, I came across a very good explanation of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, which I have not seen any of you use.
Unfortunately I can't remember the details and the printed article is at home in my files, I'll only be able to find it on Thursday, but some of you may know it already.
It relates to a prophecy in the old testament, Isaiah. Describing a fortified house, a palace or a castle with several doors, the prophet goes on and on about how all the doors are closed, and cannot be entered. Then the prince will emerge from that palace/castle, and after that the doors will be sealed for ever again.
This was interpreted in the article as prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary. I don't think it's necessary to explain the metaphor! Can anybody pinpoint and better explain the passage I am referring to?

I think that credit can also be given to the following argument. Sexuality is a sacred thing. The sexual relationship between a husband and his wife implies the total donation of oneself to the other, leaving nothing behind, placing oneself in full carnal and spiritual unity with the other.
How could Mary give Herself fully to Joseph if she had already given herself fully, in a physical way, to God?
It's not a question of her becoming polluted or dirty should she have had sex with Joseph, it's simply that she would not be able to give herself to him the way a "normal" wife should, and therefore would not have corrupted the true sacred nature of marital sexuality by giving herself partially.
Also the constant idea of poor sex-deprived Joseph is a little old. The man had a revelation from God, the miracles and wonders he must have witnessed, the blessing he must have had from living so close to Jesus all his life, would probably have made up for a few urges here and there.
Finally, and this just occured to me. I challenge any faithfull, god-fearing and good hearted man to try to imagine himself having sex, even if with his wife, in a Church, on the altar, or in the Holy of Holies.
Ridiculous right? None of us would dare even think such a horrendous thing. Not because sex is evil, simply because there are certein things that do not belong in certein places. If we can't imagine that, why do we suppose that Joseph was so sex-driven that he would want to have sex WITH the most holy of holies?
I appologise for any nightmares you may have after these explanations.
Filipe
Filipe

Filipe, I won't have any nightmares and I understand what you are saying. I think the old argument about St. Joseph's sexual urges completely underestimates the integrity of the man. I have said on another thread that I think St. Joseph is the example of what a godly man should be.

Dear Orthodox adelphoi mou,

Neither my post nor my attitude are indicative of animosity or antagonism. As is clear by my post, I'm not Orthodox, therefore I cannot be steeped in hundreds of years of Orthodox T/tradition.

That some of you have taken offense saddens me; I cannot ask to be forgiven for something that I did not intend.

I stated what the Bible says and some of you have stated what is asserted in Orthodox T/tradition. The two seem not to agree.

For those who do read Biblical Greek, you will know what 'adelphoi autou' means. You will also know what 'suggeneis/suggenes' means; it is used 12 times in the first six books of the New Testament, excluding St Matthew.

The question remains-- no offense meant, please take none, eucharisto/thanks-- if a perfectly good word for kin, kinsmen, kinsfolk, cousin is available, why didn't the author of St Matthew employ it?

Our Lady is Our Lady; Mary belongs to the whole church, the one holy catholic and apostolic church of which I am one with you all.

I have great respect for Orthodoxy and a warm place in my heart for you all (otherwise I wouldn't be here)... it pains me to be pilloried when I place a Biblical quandary before you.

I have simply pointed out what the Greek NT says; I have not, to be sure, pointed out what Orthodoxy can't say.

Perhaps if one considers one bit of T/tradition, there is a concern that all of it could come tumbling down. That is an unwarranted concern.

I know the argument from T/tradtion about these 'brothers' being kinsfolk. On what is the argument based? When did the argument first get aired. How old is the T/tradition.

The masonry upon which a system of belief (one of the connotations of the word 'faith') is founded cannot crumble if trust in God (another meaning of the word 'faith'-- the faith of a believer/the believers) remains steady.

My trust is God is founded upon the Rock which is Christ Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of the Loveliest Mary and I've not yet ever had to believe in the ever-virginness of Our Lady.

How many millions of Christians are there on the planet who trust in Christ, yet who've never even considered the ever-virginness of Mary?

It's not worth fighting about, but it is worth talking about... civilly. I trust that there are those here who are prepared to not just defend the T/tradition, but to gently probe the deep recesses of Orthodoxy to inform and explain in depth, in kind and thoughtful presentation.

I'm here to learn, not to challenge for challenge sake. Please do not assume the latter is where I'm coming from. A disciple is one who learns (present active indicative), not one who knows it all or who's learned all there is to learn.

As fellow disciples (mathetes, mathetria) we may learn together. That is my hope. blessing to all, wg

My trust in God is founded. Oops! :-)

Hello Alice,

Your apology is accepted, thanks. wg

Just some thoughts on this subject ...

When Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to register, there is no account of them bringing other children along, which would have been necessary if there were any. That, I always thought, showed that there were no children for Joseph from a prior marriage.

When Jesus was twelve and remained in the temple while his mother and father searched for him, there is no mention of other children tagging along.

Finally, I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man would not even entertain the idea of having sexual relations with The Mother of God.

Dear Wild Goose,
Not to provoke an arguement, but I would like to share something with you. I was a former protstant myself and I would like to say that Protestants have a very superficial and shallow knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. May I suggest #1 you examine a little more the language behind the texts and also #2 a more thorough investigation into exactly who these supposed brothers and sisters of Jesus really are. if you look closely they are not children of Mary and Joseph, they are relatives of them, these are the Children of Cleopas whos wife by the way was also named Mary, who was a sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (now that may sound strange to a 20th Century American but it was not at all uncommon in the middle east, nor today among Hispanics) to have more that one child with the same name.
Stephanos I
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene"
(John 19:25)
Now it is much too late to go into further detail but I will take this up later.

At this time of the development of words in the West - we have come to use the terms brother and sister in a restricted way direct (conjugal) blood relationship, and so brother and sister are used to indicate direct offspring of the union of direct parents.

We still sometimes use these terms (as was also done in the past) in a metaphorical way (spiritual) to indicate someone of like spirit but not necessarily of the same conjugal parent, and so we call may call members of the same group �brother� or �sister� even if not of the same direct parents. The black community in American sometimes uses the term to indicate - the same race - and so one black man may call any other black man - brother - and so in that community is is proper and recognized as proper use.

The Jewish community at the time of Jesus (and before) did not restrict the term as we have today. Nephews and nieces (our terms) were also called brother and sister - as well as direct conjugal offspring. Also, coming from a tradition built upon tribal development - in the past the king of the tribe was also the father of the tribe and marriage was restricted to within the tribe - meaning nephews and nieces often married. The tribal king had direct sons and daughters (prince and princess) and the sons and daughter of princes and princesses were also called sons and daughters of the king.

The fatherhood of the king in a relationship with members of the tribe was direct with only a few children - and indirect (grandfather / great grandfather - etc) with the majority of the tribe. But the terms we use (grandfather / grandfather on the mother�s side / grandfather on the fathers side / great grandfather etc.. to all the variations) were not yet coined and so being a son or daughter of the tribe was named through the father - to his father - to his father - etc� giving the terms son/daughter /brother/sister a wide utility that we have restricted today.

Example: XX the son of YY - not only indicated that XX is the direct son of YY - but was also a son of the same tribe that YY is a genetic member of. In early development one was expected to marry only a brother or sister (genetic member of the tribe) and marriage outside of the tribe was restricted to prince and princess between the two tribes in order to merge - the two tribes involved - into one tribe as eventually them that would rise to king of either would be (in our terns) nephews but in their terms - brothers.

eldest father of the tribe was also the king - he did not did not directly spawn all the members of his nomadic tribe. And so we can hear Jews say that they are sons of Abraham and Abraham is my father (which does not indicate a direct off-spring by conjugal means). It is clear that Abraham was - dead - long - by the time of Christ.

Among the rabbi and prophets - the groups that gathered to them - if accepted as disciples, the disciples were called brother between them while the rabbi was called father. I am not sure if their wives were called sisters as most of the time discipleship was restricted to males. That is somewhat maintained down to today in that priests are called Father and male monks are called Brother. This has come down to us from the situation of monastic (living together but separated from the world) were there would be one priest to guide the community and serve sacraments among several brothers - among other reasons and traditions.

Now I might be wrong here because I am not going to check - but if I am wrong on this one point - that does not disqualify the rest. I believe it is only Greek translations which give the gloss that Mary visited her �cousin� Elisabeth - because the Arabic - not making a distinction and having no word distinction - the Greek translator made the amendment so that Greeks would understand the relationship.

And finally, if a husband (XX) dies and not have male offspring with his wife (YY) his brother (WW) was required to marry the window (YY) with purpose to have son thought the widow (YY) The resultant son (if had) was first - the son of the dead brother (XX) and secondly - his own (YY) giving perpetuity to his brother�s line. The genealogy of the Temple would note that by naming the father (XX) son relationship to the wife�s original husband (XX) through the mother (WW).

The window - would remain executer of her dead husband�s estate (and genetic lineage was considered to be a part of that estate) until her new son (fathered by YY) came to age of majority (13) at which time he inherited his dead father�s estate and rights (and linage). Although directly fathered by his dead father�s brother - this son would be names after his dead father because of the original marriage of his mother - and so his legal and official name would still be �SS son of XX� and not son of YY.

Easy to understand but complicated to explain along today�s restricted use of the terms.

James and John were both - cousins of Jesus (one reason to use the term brother when speaking of them) - and disciples (another reason to use the term brother).

The person who came to Jesus and said that his mother and brothers were outside - used the term mother to indicate the direct mother-son relationship between Jesus and Mary - and used the term brother to indicate the Rabbi (father) and disciple (group of brothers) relationship between Jesus as Rabbi and the brotherhood of his disciples belonging to him. This did not indicate that Jesus was also a brother (fellow disciple) but indicated that the brothers (disciples) belonged to him as their rabbi-father. The person who said this was certainly aware of the rabbi-disciple relationship but there is no way to tell is that person also knew of the cousin relationship.

From my own research - I believe genealogies that trace the family relationship between Jesus and most of the disciples - existed - up to the start of the Middle Ages. The relationship between Jesus and his cousins was common knowledge, taken for granted as �everybody knows that� and therefore not well documented. German scholars have done the best research to restore these - but since within the main Christian traditions (Orthodox, Catholic - the main traditions) (Lutheran, Episcopal - directly from the main traditions) this topic is not a debate - and so further research and documentation has no call to be done.

So among those churches which maintain sacramental and monastic traditions going back to early Christianity - it is just common knowledge and taken for granted that everyone knows - that Jesus called them brothers because of this father-brother rabbi-son relationship and most of us also know about the cousin relationship between Jesus and I think some of the disciples.

Now I am not good at this - but if Mary and Elisabeth were cousins (fist? Second? Third?) then Jesus and John the Baptist were also cousins (second? Third? Fourth??)

If you ever get together with a group of Greek Orthodox one of the favorite entertainments is everyone discovering how they are related to each other in some way! Hehe. And it makes you dizzy because as Stephanos has noted - the habit is that new children are given the name of the grandparents - so if you call out "Hey Nick!" in a crowd of Greek Orthodox, or "Hey Cathy!" one third of the of the pople in the room will shout back "Who? me?"

Also (hehe) if you marry a Greek (and you were not Greek) if they accept you - within a short time - you ARE Greek - and no one even remembers that you were not. They just see you as always having been a Greek and related to them. I don't know how many times my Poish name (Kaliss) has been traced by Greeks to Greek orgin (a typical Greek name would be Malis). They actually have me believeing that I was just a displaced Greek! And (funny funny) I call all my wife's cousins (all 23) my own 'cousin' as I am now adopted and these are my cousins. And same with nephews and so on. With my marriage to a Greek - my whole family tree - has changed! - and that is simply the way it is for them.

If you - really - have an interest - I will see what I can do to give you proper resources. Just ask.

It is very understandable that Chritians outside of the main streams of tradition where these histories are kept and passed down - might not be aware of how these terms were used at the time in such gospel places.

-ray

Great post, Ray! - 'brother in Christ'. I would like to add Mark 3:31-35 to enhance the topic.

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

Whether it was a rabbi-son-brothers' relationship as you mention or simply that the family standing outside with the mother of Jesus were kin, so to speak, Jesus makes it clear who his family is in vs. 33-35.

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

A pretty inclusive family for sure--made up of those who do God's will-the family of Jesus.

Your 'sister' in Christ,

Porter