Author Topic: Mary, Mary... (Read 2346 times)

Maynid · « **on:** June 11, 2012, 02:26:44 PM »

Are Mary (L, UL, P) and Mary the Mother of James (RoA) the same person, and considered the same for deckbuilding?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2012, 02:40:22 PM »

Quote from: Maynid on June 11, 2012, 02:26:44 PM

Are Mary (L, UL, P) and Mary the Mother of James (RoA) the same person, and considered the same for deckbuilding?

No. They are considered different people in Redemption (though whether they actually were different people is a subject for Biblical scholars to debate).

megamanlan · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM »

I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

browarod · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2012, 04:35:56 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM

because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

James was a common name back then (As evidenced by the fact that 2 of the Disciples had it).

megamanlan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 11, 2012, 04:43:48 PM »

True.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM

I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.

Nameless · « **Reply #6 on:** June 11, 2012, 06:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.

He had brothers.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #7 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:04:40 PM »

Quote from: Nameless on June 11, 2012, 06:44:20 PM

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.
He had brothers.

How, exactly?

Drrek · « **Reply #8 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 07:04:40 PM

Quote from: Nameless on June 11, 2012, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.
He had brothers.

How, exactly?

His mother, Mary, had children with Joseph.

"Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him." Mark 6:3

"Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him. " John 7:3-6

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:15:43 PM »

Incorrect. Mary was a virgin her entire life. Close relatives were often called brothers. For example, Lot and Abraham were called brothers, but Abraham was really Lot's uncle. Also, don't you think the Bilble would name any siblings of Jesus if there were any?

Drrek · « **Reply #10 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:17:31 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 07:15:43 PM

wrong. Mary was a virgin her entire life. Close relatives were often called brothers. For example, Lot and Abraham were called brothers, but Abraham was really Lot's uncle. Also, don't you think the Bilble would name any siblings of Jesus if there were any?

I just gave you two quotes from the bible about his brothers, one of which names them. There is exactly zero biblical proof that Mary was a virgin after Jesus' birth.

Redoubter · « **Reply #11 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:19:24 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 07:04:40 PM

Quote from: Nameless on June 11, 2012, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.
He had brothers.

How, exactly?

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. ~ Matthew 12:46

"Is not this the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. ~ Mark 3:31

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. ~ Luke 8:19

His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. ~ John 7:3

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. ~ Acts 1:14

But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords brother. ~ Galatians 1:19

I encourage you to read each of those passages to find that they legitimately mention His siblings in that context. And yes, the original Greek word used is for "brother" or "sister", not another type of relative. It makes a great deal of sense for there to be children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus, since they were married, and there is no evidence that these siblings came from any relationship except between Mary and Joseph.

I understand certain denominations and the Catholic Church do not believe this, but I again encourage personal reading of the Bible to find the truth for yourself. It also does not matter theologically because the main point is that we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus fulfilling prophecy, and siblings don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Everyone, please don't turn this into a flame war or "my denomination is better than yours!" thread.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #12 on:** June 11, 2012, 09:44:59 PM »

There are actually several possibilities here:

1 - Joseph (who was probably much older than Mary) had children with a previous wife who had died. This would mean that Jesus would have "half-brothers" who were also children of His father, but NOT of His mother, and would fit with the Catholic belief of eternal virginity of Mary.

2 - Jesus had cousins or some other close relatives that were called "brothers". This would also fit with the Catholic belief of eternal virginity of Mary.

3 - Joseph and Mary had other children AFTER Jesus. This would fit with the scriptures telling about Mary's virginity at the time of having Jesus, but would NOT fit with the Catholic belief of eternal virginity of Mary.

Any of those 3 COULD be correct. Personally, I suspect that the correct guess is either 1 or 3. However, it is NOT something that Christians should allow to divide ourselves over.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** June 11, 2012, 09:53:48 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 11, 2012, 09:44:59 PM

Any of those 3 COULD be correct. Personally, I suspect that the correct guess is either 1 or 3. However, it is NOT something that Christians should allow to divide ourselves over.

Agreed completely. I'll point anyone questioning this and find it important for some reason (no matter what side they are on) to the verses I posted and see what they think from those and the original Greek.

But again, it does not matter. Come back to me when someone is saying that Mary had those children before Jesus and we'll have an issue to discuss

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2012, 10:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 11, 2012, 07:19:24 PM

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 07:04:40 PM
Quote from: Nameless on June 11, 2012, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
I personally find it strange that Redemption doesn't notice Jesus' mother Mary going to the Tomb (it's mentioned in the Bible) Although, the current assumption is that MmoJ is Jesus' mother because Jesus' half-brother is James too.

Jesus was an only child. No siblings. Don't know where they got "half brother" from.
He had brothers.

How, exactly?

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. ~ Matthew 12:46

"Is not this the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. ~ Mark 3:31

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. ~ Luke 8:19

His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. ~ John 7:3

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. ~ Acts 1:14

But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords brother. ~ Galatians 1:19

I encourage you to read each of those passages to find that they legitimately mention His siblings in that context. And yes, the original Greek word used is for "brother" or "sister", not another type of relative. It makes a great deal of sense for there to be children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus, since they were married, and there is no evidence that these siblings came from any relationship except between Mary and Joseph.

I understand certain denominations and the Catholic Church do not believe this, but I again encourage personal reading of the Bible to find the truth for yourself. It also does not matter theologically because the main point is that we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus fulfilling prophecy, and siblings don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Everyone, please don't turn this into a flame war or "my denomination is better than yours!" thread.

My brother is studying Catholic apologetics and I asked if I could see the book. This is what I found. It does matter theologically, because this it what Christians have believed from the beginning of the Faith. If Jesus would have had blood brothers, wouldn't he have entrusted His mother, Mary, to one of them instead of John at the Crucifixion? Also, did you know that Martin Luther, John Calvin and Urlich Zwingli ALL believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin? They say it in books they wrote. Respectively, Luther (Works of Luther, Volume 11, 319-320) Calvin (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562) and Zwingli (Zwingli Opera, Volume 1, 424). Read these passages. Also, does it make sense that Mary, after being the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the mother of the living God, would have children with someone else?

Here is an article that explains it better than I can. This argument isn't going to be settled on this thread, on a computer. Christians have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary from the first century on.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 11, 2012, 09:44:59 PM

There are actually several possibilities here:

1 - Joseph (who was probably much older than Mary) had children with a previous wife who had died. This would mean that Jesus would have "half-brothers" who were also children of His father, but NOT of His mother, and would fit with the Catholic belief of eternal virginity of Mary.

2 - Jesus had cousins or some other close relatives that were called "brothers". This would also fit with the Catholic belief of eternal virginity of Mary.

These two are correct.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2012, 10:34:16 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 10:08:32 PM

These two are correct.

You completely missed our point. You are basing your opinion of this based on your upbringing and information others gave you, just as we are. I was raised Protestant, so the idea that Mary was a virgin all of her life in defiance of the command to be fruitful and to be one flesh with her husband doesn't make sense to me. But it makes sense to you, because of the reasons you cited, and I respect that deeply.

I don't think I'm right. I don't think you're right. I think it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to me what we believe on this issue, because it does not lead to false teachings. The fact is that Christians have disagreed on this for nearly two millennium (despite the books your brother may provide you or my parents may provide me) and it doesn't make a lick of difference. We'll know the answer in the end, but if you focus on the small then you aren't concentrating on the big. It's a great trick of the Deceiver that we fight over something that doesn't matter.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born as prophecy foretold and has saved you from the penalty of sin? Do you believe that we are to love God with all our hearts, soul, mind, and strength, then love our neighbor as ourselves? Well then, what's the issue if you believe that Mary was eternally the spouse of the Holy Spirit and I believe that she followed God's command to be fruitful and multiply, honoring her vows? There is no issue. We need to find the common ground, not find things to fight over. That's what has led Christianity to the unfortunate state we find it in today.

So I won't fight with you, nor should I. We can disagree and still be brothers

Drrek · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2012, 10:43:04 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 11, 2012, 10:34:16 PM

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 11, 2012, 10:08:32 PM
These two are correct.

You completely missed our point. You are basing your opinion of this based on your upbringing and information others gave you, just as we are. I was raised Protestant, so the idea that Mary was a virgin all of her life in defiance of the command to be fruitful and to be one flesh with her husband doesn't make sense to me. But it makes sense to you, because of the reasons you cited, and I respect that deeply.

I don't think I'm right. I don't think you're right. I think it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to me what we believe on this issue, because it does not lead to false teachings. The fact is that Christians have disagreed on this for nearly two millennium (despite the books your brother may provide you or my parents may provide me) and it doesn't make a lick of difference. We'll know the answer in the end, but if you focus on the small then you aren't concentrating on the big. It's a great trick of the Deceiver that we fight over something that doesn't matter.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born as prophecy foretold and has saved you from the penalty of sin? Do you believe that we are to love God with all our hearts, soul, mind, and strength, then love our neighbor as ourselves? Well then, what's the issue if you believe that Mary was eternally the spouse of the Holy Spirit and I believe that she followed God's command to be fruitful and multiply, honoring her vows? There is no issue. We need to find the common ground, not find things to fight over. That's what has led Christianity to the unfortunate state we find it in today.

So I won't fight with you, nor should I. We can disagree and still be brothers

If I may expound upon your point, I believe Acts 15 gives an excellent example of how we should act in these situations. At that time there was a division in the church between those who felt the Gentiles should follow the Law of Moses exactly, and those that felt differently. In the end, through Peter, Paul and Silas' testimonies, it was decided that some things (to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood) were important and that the Gentiles should follow them, but that others such as circumcision were not important enough to risk making it difficult for Gentiles turning to God.

I think this has direct parallels to issues like this one, where the issue is not overly important for faith in God, and thus should not be something that causes division.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2012, 07:46:47 AM »

Fair enough.

megamanlan · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2012, 01:53:33 PM »

I agree with Redoubter and Derrek on this one, it's not that important since I don't base my belief on that Mary was an eternal virgin, but on Christ alone as the Bible says, that he was born, had no sin, died and rose again and that Mary's only major part in our salvation is that she was a virgin when she gave birth the the Christ child. It makes no difference to me if she was a virgin afterwards or not.

News:

Author Topic: Mary, Mary... (Read 2346 times)

browarod