Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[simonthezealot]

Who are the promoters of NO brothers and sisters in this thread? Certainly not me. I am quite certain that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Joseph by his former wife.

What is the alternative to "according to the flesh" ?

John

Not sure what your asking about the alternative, but if your at all familiar with the recorded citations of Hegessipus you're aware that he discusses Symeon as one of those who are Jesus' cousin as well so there is a clear distinction in what he meant when he said, "according to the flesh"

 

[MrPolo]

Not sure what your asking about the alternative, but if your at all familiar with the recorded citations of Hegessipus you're aware that he discusses Symeon as one of those who are Jesus' cousin as well so there is a clear distinction in what he meant when he said, "according to the flesh"

Here's what Hegessipus wrote:

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.​

Here it says this Judas was called "his brother," and if I read right, he was in the line of David. So "according to the flesh" could certainly refer to blood relative.

Hegessipus wrote around 165-175 AD. A contemporary or earlier document is also the Protoevangelion of James from 140-170 AD. In that reads:

And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed.​

So we have a historical text attesting to Joseph having already had sons while Mary was still a maiden.

Incidentally, this Protoevangelion goes on in paragraphs 19-20 to describe how they checked to see if Mary was still an intact virgin after the birth, and she was.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks for those that have posted and voted. I am a bit surprised by the number of members who voted "does it matter".

Does it matter?

7 15.91%

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Incidentally, this Protoevangelion goes on in paragraphs 19-20 to describe how they checked to see if Mary was still an intact virgin after the birth, and she was.

Let's see....

XIX. I And behold a woman coming down from the hillcountry, and she said to me: Man, whither goest thou ? And I said: I seek a midwife of the Hebrews. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel ? And I said unto her: Yea. And she said: And who is she that bringeth forth in the cave ? And I said: She that is betrothed unto me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was nurtured up in the temple of the Lord: and I received her to wife by lot: and she is not my wife, but she hath conception by the Holy Ghost.
And the midwife said unto him: Is this the truth? And Joseph said unto her: Come hither and see. And the midwife went with him.
2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.
And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that ! have seen this new sight. 3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.
XX. 1 And the midwife went in and said unto Mary: Order thyself, for there is no small contention arisen concerning thee. Arid Salome made trial and cried out and said: Woe unto mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God, and lo, my hand falleth away from me in fire. And she bowed her knees unto the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: make me not a public example unto the children of Israel, but restore me unto the poor, for thou knowest, Lord, that in thy name did I perform my cures, and did receive my hire of thee. 3 And lo, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath hearkened to thee: bring thine hand near unto the young child and take him up, and there shall be unto thee salvation and joy. 4 And Salome came near and took him up, saying: I will do him worship, for a great king is born unto Israel. And behold immediately Salome was healed: and she went forth of the cave justified. And Io, a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell none of the marvels which thou hast seen, until the child enter into Jerusalem


Nope.

NOTHING here in this rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative, noninspiried book about Mary being medically examined and found that all was intact and she was indeed a virgin. But, of course, all that would be ENTIRELY moot to any dogma. The only dogma related to this is one held in 3 denominations that insists as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had No Sex EVER (not that Mary was a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus - that's an entirely different dogma).

And while this rejected book does seem to indicate no siblings of Jesus via Mary, there is no dogma ANYWHERE (and never has been - anywhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The dogma is about sex, not sibs.




It seems to me all the oldest and best Tradition agrees with the 49.997 denominations that are silent on the issue of the Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" as well as the non-dogma (it exists nowhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The newer, weaker tradition is that She was medically examined at Her assumption and found to be a virgin, and that she never had any other children.



Thank you for supplying this!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MrPolo]

I am a bit surprised by the number of members who voted "does it matter".

Really? I see the attitude of minimalization going on a lot around here....filtering Scripture from "essentials vs. non-essentials"....etc... Wasn't surprising to me!

 

[simonthezealot]

A contemporary or earlier document is also the Protoevangelion of James from 140-170 AD. In that reads:

Hilarious, using dubious rants whoms credibleness and authenticity can’t be confirmed.
These works Polo were condemned by one of your own Popes.
Why is it that you'd use this Polo? let me venture a guess; It is because it seems to support Rome's position, so it is used?
And to think this likely is the source where these doctrines originated in the RC church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Really? I see the attitude of minimalization going on a lot around here....filtering Scripture from "essentials vs. non-essentials"....etc... Wasn't surprising to me!

Seems like that is what it boils down to eh?

 

[MrPolo]

Why is it that you'd use this Polo? let me venture a guess; It is because it seems to support Rome's position, so it is used? [/COLOR]
And to think this likely is the source where these doctrines originated in the RC church.

What's wrong with quoting it? I wasn't founding the doctrine of PV on that document. It shows an ancient text that says Joseph had children prior to Mary. We are showing historical sources are we not? At any rate, Pope Gelasius also didn't care for the writings of Clement of Alexandria or Julius Africanus or Eusebius which the Church continues to revere. So what. If you want to identify a tradition, it should be evidenced before and after, by predecessors and successors, a statement in the context of history.

 

[narnia59]

Nope.

NOTHING here in this rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative, noninspiried book about Mary being medically examined and found that all was intact and she was indeed a virgin. But, of course, all that would be ENTIRELY moot to any dogma. The only dogma related to this is one held in 3 denominations that insists as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had No Sex EVER (not that Mary was a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus - that's an entirely different dogma).

And while this rejected book does seem to indicate no siblings of Jesus via Mary, there is no dogma ANYWHERE (and never has been - anywhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The dogma is about sex, not sibs.




It seems to me all the oldest and best Tradition agrees with the 49.997 denominations that are silent on the issue of the Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" as well as the non-dogma (it exists nowhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The newer, weaker tradition is that She was medically examined at Her assumption and found to be a virgin, and that she never had any other children.



Thank you for supplying this!


Pax


- Josiah




.

And yet the official doctrinal statement of the Lutherans attests to Mary's virginity being 'inviolate' through the delivery of Christ. I am curious as to your thoughts why this is important enough to be doctrine for the Lutherans?

I'd also be interested in why it's not an issue with you as it also is not shared doctrinally with the 49,996 other denominations or validated in Scripture. That seems to be your "sticking point" with the perpetual virginity doctrine shared by the Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Nope.

NOTHING here in this rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative, noninspiried book about Mary being medically examined and found that all was intact and she was indeed a virgin. But, of course, all that would be ENTIRELY moot to any dogma. The only dogma related to this is one held in 3 denominations that insists as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had No Sex EVER (not that Mary was a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus - that's an entirely different dogma).

And while this rejected book does seem to indicate no siblings of Jesus via Mary, there is no dogma ANYWHERE (and never has been - anywhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The dogma is about sex, not sibs.




It seems to me all the oldest and best Tradition agrees with the 49.997 denominations that are silent on the issue of the Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" as well as the non-dogma (it exists nowhere) of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The newer, weaker tradition is that She was medically examined at Her assumption and found to be a virgin, and that she never had any other children.



Thank you for supplying this!


Pax


- Josiah




.

And yet ...

I think you missed the point.

Our Catholic friend stated that a rejected, nonauthoritative, noncanonical, noninspired book stated something. He even gave the reference (but, curiously, didn't actually quote it). So I quoted it. Verbatim. And all who are able to read noted that he's wrong. It does not.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think you missed the point.

Our Catholic friend stated that a rejected, nonauthoritative, noncanonical, noninspired book stated something. He even gave the reference (but, curiously, didn't actually quote it). So I quoted it. Verbatim. And all who are able to read noted that he's wrong. It does not.

.

Hi CJ. Do you have a link to that post? Thanks

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hmm. And assuming Jesus had several little brothers and sisters running around, why didn't they get mentioned in the trip to Jerusalam (Luke 2:41-52)? By the time he was twelve, Mary and Joseph would have multiple little ones around, but no mention of them.

Because none existed.

When I was young I often wondered how Mary and Joseph would have so easily forgotten their only child when they left Jerusalem. Most parents with only one child are hardly so forgetful that they get on the road without him. However, if there were younger siblings I can easily see how they were distracted by keeping them together for the return trip so that Jesus was forgotten because he, being able to look after himself, didn't need the attention of the younger ones.

 

[Thekla]

This description (or interpretation) is culturally derived; what of the Jewish culture of the time ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

In reality it is to alert the reader to the actual meaning implied by the Greek. The word "wife" may not be in the text, but in Greek it is almost always implied whereas the explicit terms wife or spouse are rarely used.

John

Precisely. Thanks for correcting my oversight.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

When I was young I often wondered how Mary and Joseph would have so easily forgotten their only child when they left Jerusalem. Most parents with only one child are hardly so forgetful that they get on the road without him. However, if there were younger siblings I can easily see how they were distracted by keeping them together for the return trip so that Jesus was forgotten because he, being able to look after himself, didn't need the attention of the younger ones.

Another good point. That was brought up in an earlier post....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512-2/#post52909085

 

[Thekla]

I rarely see my children when the extended family is present

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I rarely see my children when the extended family is present

Check the treehouse

 

[narnia59]

I think you missed the point.

Our Catholic friend stated that a rejected, nonauthoritative, noncanonical, noninspired book stated something. He even gave the reference (but, curiously, didn't actually quote it). So I quoted it. Verbatim. And all who are able to read noted that he's wrong. It does not.




.

No, but you're avoiding the point.

So again, how is it that you believe it is so incorrect for the Catholic and Orthodox to have a doctrine about the perpetual virginity of Mary (based upon being in the minority of denominations and no specific Biblical statement for support), yet you do not apply those same standards to the Book of Concord and its doctine regarding Mary's virginity remaining inviolate through the birth of Christ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, but you're avoiding the point.

No, you missed the point.

Our Catholic friend stated that a rejected, nonauthoritative, noncanonical, noninspired book stated something. He even gave the reference (but, curiously, didn't actually quote it). So I quoted it. Verbatim. And all who are able to read noted that he's wrong. It does not.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

how is it that you believe it is so incorrect for the Catholic and Orthodox to have a doctrine about the perpetual virginity of Mary

When did I say it was "incorrect?" When did I even post that I believe the veiw is wrong?

On the other hand, if a denomination is going to insist as a matter of highest importance and certainty that Mary had pink hair (and perhaps dispatch unbelievers to heaven a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke because of this dogma and dividing the church on this point) then I don't think it unreasonable to ask for some confirmation of the point - something more than "but our denomination holds this view"). I'd look for something, some apologetic that you'd accept from noncatholics as valid and sound.

Now, if you are going to say, "I personally believe that Mary probably had brown hair since most Hebrews did and do" then that's another matter, isn't it? You are not regarding me as a hellbound heretic and dividing the church over the issue of her hair color. I've used several illustrations. I'm just a bit puzzled why this point seems so hard to understand.



.