Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

Here you are:

Originally Posted by MrPolo

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.
​

Since I've read the book many times (I've even had a thread to discuss it) and since I could remember no such thing, and since I found it curious that he'd reference the book but didn't quote it, I looked it up. There was NOTHING of the sort stated there. So, I did the reasonable (and I hope helpful) thing - I quoted it for him and all. Verbatim. So all could actually read the rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative words for themselves. And reach the only possible conclusion.



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here you are:

Originally Posted by MrPolo

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.
​

Since I've read the book many times (I've even had a thread to discuss it) and since I could remember no such thing, and since I found it curious that he'd reference the book but didn't quote it, I looked it up. There was NOTHING of the sort stated there. So, I did the reasonable (and I hope helpful) thing - I quoted it for him and all. Verbatim. So all could actually read the rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative words for themselves. And reach the only possible conclusion.

.

Thank you CJ for taking the time to find it for me.
At what period of time during the life of Mary was this check allegedly done according to this passage?

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.

 

[Polycarp1]

Scripture says that Jesus had adelphoi and adelphai. James the Just, author of the Epistle bearing his name and mentioned in Acts after the death of James Bar Zebedee as bishop of the Jerusalem church, is called adelphos of Jesus.

Adelphos (pl. -oi) most commonly means "brother (and adelphé/-ai sister(s)). However, it also means "(first) cousin" or "near kinsman" in the same way as "uncle" usually means "parent's brother" but sometimes "aunt's husband" or "close gentleman friend of the family regarded as 'part of the family'."

So the reference to "Jesus's brothers" in Scripture strongly suggests that Jesus had brothers or step-brothers but does not prove it. In particular, the very early teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity, in a culture that by and large did not regard virginity as necessarily 'special' or 'holy', suggests that one of the alternate understandings of the terms may be true. Personally, I don't regard it as a huge issue. Mary, wife of Joseph, would in no way be sinning by conceiving and bearing his and her sons and daughters. But if they agreed to live celibately and raise kids who were either Joseph's children by a prior wife or orphaned near kin, that idea too would not bother me.

 

[narnia59]

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.



.

You've never said it's "wrong". You have questioned (probably at least 500 times, but who's counting?), why a few denominations would identify something as doctrine (separating them from the rest) on a matter the Bible is silent on.

So, to your point, the Bible doesn't say anything about Mary's hair color, and you think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a valid apologetic to support any doctrine that would identify it as a specific color. You've set that as your standard.

I am not asking you a hard question. I am simply asking you to provide the same sort of standard for a statement from the Book of Concord that you seem to believe is appropriate for others, or to else explain why in that case, it is different.

 

[MrPolo]

At what period of time during the life of Mary was this check allegedly done according to this passage?

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.

Here is the excerpt:

And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.​

This incident describes the scene of the Nativity some time after the birth. So that's the account, according to the Protoevangelium of James. It should be pointed out, that contrary to what was stated earlier in the thread, this text is not the "source" for the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip* Here is the excerpt:

..............

This incident describes the scene of the Nativity some time after the birth. So that's the account, according to the Protoevangelium of James. Contrary to what was stated earlier in the thread, this text is not the "source" for the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity.

Thanks.
But it seems to me it can also be used by those who read and believe that event to prove Mary did not give birth later to brothers and sisters which is what this thread is mainly about. That was interesting though as I have never read that myself.

 

[MrPolo]

it can also be used by those who read and believe that event to prove Mary did not give birth later to brothers and sisters

They use what I just posted to "prove" she had other children? There isn't much of a need to take such a person seriously....

 

[MrPolo]

So do the people who cite the Bible verses referencing "brothers of the Lord" as an obvious reference to Mary's other children think the CC, EO, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.... just missed these "obvious" verses in Scripture, or are they stupid, or what??

 

[PaladinValer]

They think we are too reliant on Tradition despite the fact that we rely on the very Greek the Bible is written with more than they.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So do the people who cite the Bible verses referencing "brothers of the Lord" as an obvious reference to Mary's other children think the CC, EO, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.... just missed these "obvious" verses in Scripture, or are they stupid, or what??

1. Keep in mind, my full unseparated brother, that there IS no dogma (anywhere, in any denomination) of "Jesus Had Sibs" or "Jesus Had No Sibs." So, some are sharing their OPINIONS - fallible they be.

2. The terms "brothers" and "sisters" COULD apply to step sibs via Joseph, they do not SPECIFICALLY and ONLY mean siblings via Mary. (Actually, as I've been told - and I'm not scholar in koine Greek, the terms are even less definate than that). Thus, TEXTUALLY, it's possible that the siblings here being spoken of are not children of Mary. What we lack are verses that speak of other children specifically OF MARY. Thus, IMHO, we simply do not know if Mary had other children or not. I tend to agree that such seems LIKELY but LIKELY is not the basis for dogma (pious opinion, perhaps).

3. I personally disagree with any who argue AS DOGMA that Mary DID or DID NOT have other children. But then that seems moot since no one does. There is no such dogma, either way, anywhere. I think some are confusing this with the dogma of "Mary Had No Sex." But that's about sex, not sibs (although obviously, if we had other kids - she had sex, baring the possiblity that they too were by the Holy Spirit).





.

 

[MrPolo]

They think we are too reliant on Tradition despite the fact that we rely on the very Greek the Bible is written with more than they.

I realize that, but even so, you would have to question how, if the Bible was THAT clear that she had other children, how this ruse could ever persevere across so many centuries or even come about to begin with! This is one of the oldest Marian Traditions. I would think you would HAVE to conclude that those who believe in the PV suffer from an extreme form of utter mental destitution. Except it couldn't be extreme, since the Christian world professed it unchallenged for some 1300 years and beyond, including escaping the challenge of the Reformation fathers!

On the reverse, I can understand how modern Christians think Mary had other children without having to think them insane. Reading the verses by themselves, they never see the Greek or accept its diverse meanings, and assume that "brothers" is the more typical 21st century English use of uterine siblings. Same thing with the word "until."

 

[prodromos]

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.

Neither is the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in the Bible Canon, nor the Apology of Justin Martyr, nor the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, nor the Epistles of Polycarp, nor those of Ignatius, Barnabas or Irenaeus. The Didache is not included in scripture nor the Shepherd of Hermas, neither are the writings of Theophilus, Athenagoras or Clement of Alexandria. All these works are valuable resources giving us rich insights into the Christian faith received from the Apostles but because they are not included in the Bible Canon you would likely classify them as "rejected, nonauthoritative, noncanonical, noninspired books".

When people are reduced to attempts at poisoning the well, it demonstrates rather the weakness of their own position.

John

 

[seashale76]

Let's put the boot on the other foot - why wouldn't Jesus have any brothers or sisters?

Tradition has held that Joseph was quite an elderly man, for one. Even pre-Reformation Christmas/Nativity carols attest to it. Iconography also has always depicted Joseph as an old man.

Actually, I don't think there was ever a group of folks pre-Reformation- other than those of an anti-Christ and anti-Christian rabble rousing bent- that claimed the Theotokos ever bore anyone other than Christ. The intent of such claims being to discredit the entire idea of a virgin birth and Christ being fully God and fully man.

 

[Polycarp1]

Tradition has held that Joseph was quite an elderly man, for one. Even pre-Reformation Christmas/Nativity carols attest to it. Iconography also has always depicted Joseph as an old man.

Actually, I don't think there was ever a group of folks pre-Reformation- other than those of an anti-Christ and anti-Christian rabble rousing bent- that claimed the Theotokos ever bore anyone other than Christ. The intent of such claims being to discredit the entire idea of a virgin birth and Christ being fully God and fully man.

Could you make clear how the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Dogma of the Two Natures in Christ are interrelated, in your understanding? Like many, I don't see any clear connection between them -- and it's obvious that many Orthodox and Catholics do. The request is for information, not polemic in intent.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Neither is the Epistle of Clement

So what?

We were told that this noncanonical books states that Mary was examined to see if she was still a virgin - and she was. The reference to the book was given.

I went to the book and quoted the reference. Verbatim. It said NO SUCH THING.

That's the point.




.

 

[seashale76]

Could you make clear how the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Dogma of the Two Natures in Christ are interrelated, in your understanding? Like many, I don't see any clear connection between them -- and it's obvious that many Orthodox and Catholics do. The request is for information, not polemic in intent.

I'm going to borrow some phrases (mostly from the Akathist) and wax poetic to try to help you understand. She's the ideal Christian- she is THE human we should look to so as to see what happens when we submit ourselves fully to Christ our God. She is a true handmaid of God. She attained theosis.

She is called the Unwedded Bride.
She gave birth to Christ- she is holy.
Her womb is more spacious than the heavens.
She is the ladder of divine descent.
She gave birth yet remained a virgin.

I'm totally borrowing this because it also explains how we see the Theotokos: ORTHODIXIE ... Southern, Orthodox, Convert, Etc.: Mary, the Mother of God (Theotokos)

Appellations of the Theotokos.

Ark.
The Theotokos is often called an Ark, for the Glory of God settled on her, just as the Glory of God descended on the Mercy Seat of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10-22).

Aaron's Rod.
Just as Aaron's Rod sprouted miraculously in the Old Testament, so too, the Theotokos has budded forth the Flower of Immortality, Christ our God (Num. 17:1-11).

Burning Bush.
On Mt. Sinai, Moses saw the Bush that was burning, but was not consumed. So too, the Theotokos bore the fire of Divinity, but was not consumed (Ex. 3:1-6).

(Golden) Candlestick.
In the Old Testament Tabernacle, there were found in the Sanctuary golden candlesticks. The Theotokos is the Candlestick which held that Light that illumines the world (Ex. 25:31-40).

(Golden) Censer.
Just as the censer holds a burning coal, so too, the Theotokos held the Living Coal. In the Apocalypse, there stands an Angel before the Throne of God, swinging a censer, representing the prayers of the Saints rising up to God. This is also seen as a symbol of the Theotokos, for it is her prayers that find special favor before her Son.

Cloud.
In the Exodus, the Israelites were led out of Egypt by a Cloud of Light, symbolizing the presence of God in their midst. So too, the Theotokos is a Cloud, bearing God within.

Fleece.
In the book of Judges we read the account of the dew which appeared miraculously on Gideon's fleece (Judges 6:36-40). So too, the Dew Christ, appeared miraculously on the Living Fleece the Theotokos.

Holy of Holies.
Into the Holy of Holies only the High Priest could enter. So too, the Theotokos is the Holy of Holies into which only the Eternal High Priest Christ entered (Heb. 9:1-7).

Ladder.
In a dream Jacob saw a ladder ascending to Heaven, with Angels ascending and descending on it. The Theotokos is a Ladder, stretching from earth to Heaven, for on It God descended to man, having become incarnate.

Mountain (from which a Stone was cut not by hand of man).
The Prophet Daniel saw a mountain, from which was cut a stone, not by the hand of man (Dan. 2:34, 45). This is a reference to the miraculous Virgin Birth which was accomplished without the hand of man.

Palace.
The Theotokos was the Palace within which the King Christ our God dwelt.

Pot.
[See Urn]

Stem of Jesse.
In the Nativity Service, the Lord is referred to as the Rod from the Stem of Jesse (Is. 11:1), indicating His lineage from David, which was fulfilled through the Theotokos, who was a scion (or stem) of the line of David, the son of Jesse.

Tabernacle.
The Tabernacle was the place where the Glory of God dwelt. So too, the Glory of God dwelt in the Theotokos the Living Tabernacle (Ex. 40:34).

(Holy) Table.
This refers to the Holy Table (Altar Table) on which, at the Divine Liturgy, the Divine Food is offered. So too, the Theotokos is the Holy Table which bore the Bread of Life.

Temple.
The Prophet Ezekiel speaks of the Temple whose East gate remains sealed, through which only the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered. This clearly prophesies the Virgin Birth of the Theotokos (Ez. 44:1-2).

Throne.
The Theotokos is the Throne upon which Christ, the King of All, rested.

(Golden) Urn.
In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant contained within itself a golden urn filled with the heavenly manna. The Theotokos is the Urn which contained Christ, the Divine Manna (Heb. 9:1-7).

Vine.
The Theotokos is the Vine which bore the Ripe Cluster (of Grapes), Christ our Lord.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Could you make clear how the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Dogma of the Two Natures in Christ are interrelated, in your understanding? Like many, I don't see any clear connection between them -- and it's obvious that many Orthodox and Catholics do. The request is for information, not polemic in intent.

I found this on the GOARCH site, which I thought was helpful:

THE EVER-VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

Fr. John Hainsworth

LAST year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase "ever-virgin" with reference to the Lord's Mother. Someone asked, "Do you actually mean that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth?" I said yes, that is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The look of surprised bemusement on the audience's faces said it all. The miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality? That's impossible !

The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that of course it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest. The Orthodox have no difficulty, then, considering the ever-virginity of Mary a nonnegotiable fact and its alternative unthinkable. But why should this necessarily be so? Why insist on the idea that Mary (who was married, after all) did not go on to have a "normal" married life?



A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.



Set Apart to God

To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. Leaving aside for a moment the complete uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, recall that it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses "separated himself" from his wife Zipporah when he returned from his encounter with God in the burning bush. Another rabbinical tradition, concerning the choosing of the elders of Israel in Numbers 7, relates that after God had worked among them, one man exclaimed, "Woe to the wives of these men!" I cannot imagine that the fellow to the left of him replied, "What do you mean, Joe?" The meaning of the statement would have been immediately apparent.

Whether these stories relate actual events or not, they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ. That culture understood virginity and abstinence not as a mere rejection of something enjoyable--To what end?-- But as something naturally taken up by one whose life has been consecrated by the Lord's Spirit to be a vessel of salvation to His people. The intervening centuries of social, religious, and philosophical conditioning have made us suspicious of virginity and chastity in a way that no one in the Lord's time would have been.

Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone? Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion? Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).

And then there is Joseph's character to consider. Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!

- - continued - -

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Why Mary's Ever-Virginity Is Important


Some would say that even if it can be proved, Mary's ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level. In its essence, the Orthodox Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our message, our reason for being, the very life of our life. Teaching about Mary is really meant for the initiates, those who have already accepted the Gospel and have committed themselves to Christ and to service in His Church.


This is so because what Mary teaches us about the Incarnation of the Word of God requires that we first accept the Incarnation. Once we do, then her virginity not only after birthgiving, but also before and indeed the character of her entire life become in themselves a wellspring of teaching about life in Christ and the glory of God. Indeed, she said as much herself. By stating that "all generations shall call me blessed," Mary was not vainly contemplating her own uniqueness, but proclaiming the wonder that her life was to manifest God's glorious victory in His Christ for all time.


Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages. The entire history of Israel, the patriarchs, the psalms, the prophets, the giving of the commandments converged in the young woman who would answer the way all Israel should always have answered, and as we all are expected to answer now: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord."


But her purpose in salvation history did not end there. She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful. Instead her whole being and life would continue to point us without distraction to her Son. At the wedding of Cana in Galilee we hear her words: "Whatever He says to you, do it" (John 2:5). At her
Son's crucifixion, she stands fast at the foot of the Cross, this time pointing not with words but by her refusal to leave His side even in the face of what seemed an impossible nightmare. As we undertake to imitate this faithfulness in pointing always to God, we will begin to see in the same measure that Mary's perpetual virginity is in fact her ever-ministry, the ideal example for our own ministry.


It is important to recover the proper veneration of Mary which the apostolic Church has always held, not because Mary is the great exception but, as one Orthodox theologian has said, because she is the great example. This veneration is beautifully expressed in an Orthodox hymn that poetically recounts Gabriel's first encounter with Mary, who was about to become the Ark of the New Covenant, the throne of God, the flesh which gave flesh to the Word of God:



Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
"What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace."



The original article is courtesy of Conciliar Press: http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/62/31/9/9/

Copyright: 2004, Conciliar Press

Source: Again Magazine

Editor: Conciliar Press

 

[narnia59]

So what?

We were told that this noncanonical books states that Mary was examined to see if she was still a virgin - and she was. The reference to the book was given.

I went to the book and quoted the reference. Verbatim. It said NO SUCH THING.

That's the point.




.

Whether it said "NO SUCH THING" seems to depend on the translation. In the one Mr. Polo provided, it seems pretty clear. In the one you provided, it says Salome "made trial". So, what do you suggest that means, if not an examination?

 

[narnia59]

2. The terms "brothers" and "sisters" COULD apply to step sibs via Joseph, they do not SPECIFICALLY and ONLY mean siblings via Mary. (Actually, as I've been told - and I'm not scholar in koine Greek, the terms are even less definate than that). Thus, TEXTUALLY, it's possible that the siblings here being spoken of are not children of Mary. What we lack are verses that speak of other children specifically OF MARY. Thus, IMHO, we simply do not know if Mary had other children or not. I tend to agree that such seems LIKELY but LIKELY is not the basis for dogma (pious opinion, perhaps).







.

I think for fun I'm just going to keep following you around and asking the same question even though you don't seem to plan to answer it. What, IYHO, do you think is the basis for the doctrine that Mary gave birth without her virginity being violated as noted in the Book of Concord?