Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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?

1. IMHO, it is possible for a couple to have had an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies without having children resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible (or even have children AT ALL - mentioned in the Bible or not). Perhaps you fundamentally disagree. Why, I know a couple that has no children and yet they specificly told me they "tried for years" (I take that to mean each is not a perpetual virgin). So, I don't agree with your argument that if other children of Mary are not specificly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. Nor does it confirm to me that such an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the wife (but not husband) impure - as is given as the reason for the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Catholics and Orthodox.

2. If you want to discuss the CONFESSIONS of the Lutheran Church, you might want to take that to the Lutheran forum. It is well known that Luther and some of the Lutheran Church Fathers embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - at least early in their lives. We all know that. However, was it dogma (the Lutheran Confessions don't make this uniquely Catholic distinctions between various levels of truth; the Confessions are just that - not necessarily dogmas)? As I've explained repeatedly before (to no avail), to see, we must determine two things: Is it specifically taught as something that must be believed? Simply using a common TITLE for Mary or expressing a faith is not the same as declaring dogma - not in ANY denomination. Secondly, how was the view treated? Luther was surrounded by Lutheran pastors, teachers and theologians that did NOT embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Where they excommunicated for that? Did Luther condemn them as heretics? Was there DIFFERENT pious opinion permitted, even welcomed? Or were they condemned, excommunicated and burned at the stake (in not infrequent style of the RCC in those days)? Several times, I've shared with you that Protestants embrace something we call pious opinion. These are views (perhaps even very passionate ones) that are NEITHER substantiated or denied by Scripture BUT have solid, historic, ECUMENICAL embrace. One is permitted to embrace and teach such (even in a document later made a part of the Book of Concord), but one is not bound to such, one may do as I do and have no opinion on it or one may disagree with it and not embrace it. SCRIPTURE is our rule. We've been all over this, um, how many times?????



Since you'd rather discuss the RCC DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER, then I'd repeat AGAIN my questions to and requests of you (ignored for longer than I can remember, in numerous threads, over many, many months):

1. Please show us how the dogmatic view that Our Lady never once had sex is a STRONGER and OLDER position in the Bible (or even your own single denomination's "tradition") than is the dogmatic position of 49,997 denominations - SILENCE?

2. Please explain from Scripture (or even your own single denomination's own earliest "tradition") how it is that a single, loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the WIFE impure and defiled (but not the husband) so that if Mary even once shared such, she'd be impure?

3. Please explain why there this obsession on the part of your denomination (to the level of DOGMA) on the "bedroom activities" of this holy couple after Jesus was born? Why is it so very critical to our salvation and to Jesus being our Savior? Why is it that a single instance of mutual, loving, respectful sharing of intimacies say years after Jesus was born would make our salvation moot and Jesus not our Savior; how would it so horribly defile not only Mary but Jesus? Of course, NORMALLY, the "bedroom activities" of a married couple is regarded as private and respected, but here it is shouted, broadcast in the loudest, boldest, possible way, throughout all the world and to all generations as a matter of highest importance to US: "MARY AND JOSEPH HAD MARITAL SEX NOT ONCE!!!" Why?





.

 

[seashale76]

She had Christ IN. HER. WOMB. People seem to be significantly underplaying the significance of this. The Theotokos is HOLY. She was consecrated to God as a child. She was able to carry Christ in her womb and NOT DIE. Joseph who, as stated earlier, was an elderly man, knew this. He wouldn't dare approach that holiness which had been consecrated to God. Other people obviously sensed the significance of Mary's position besides Joseph (who had been directly informed). Her cousin Elizabeth immediately knew upon seeing her- as well as the nascent John the Baptist. The High Priest Zacharias knew when he saw her as a child.

 

[narnia59]

2. If you want to discuss the CONFESSIONS of the Lutheran Church, you might want to take that to the Lutheran forum. It is well known that Luther and some of the Lutheran Church Fathers embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - at least early in their lives. We all know that. However, was it dogma (the Lutheran Confessions don't make this uniquely Catholic distinctions between various levels of truth; the Confessions are just that - not necessarily dogmas)? As I've explained repeatedly before (to no avail), to see, we must determine two things: Is it specifically taught as something that must be believed? Simply using a common TITLE for Mary or expressing a faith is not the same as declaring dogma - not in ANY denomination. Secondly, how was the view treated? Luther was surrounded by Lutheran pastors, teachers and theologians that did NOT embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Where they excommunicated for that? Did Luther condemn them as heretics? Was there DIFFERENT pious opinion permitted, even welcomed? Or were they condemned, excommunicated and burned at the stake (in not infrequent style of the RCC in those days)? Several times, I've shared with you that Protestants embrace something we call pious opinion. These are views (perhaps even very passionate ones) that are NEITHER substantiated or denied by Scripture BUT have solid, historic, ECUMENICAL embrace. One is permitted to embrace and teach such (even in a document later made a part of the Book of Concord), but one is not bound to such, one may do as I do and have no opinion on it or one may disagree with it and not embrace it. SCRIPTURE is our rule. We've been all over this, um, how many times?????







.

We have been over this many fewer times than people have thoroughly and completely answered your repeated assertions, and you choose to ignore the responses and keep asking the same questions.

I do not wish to discuss the Book of Concord per se, hence I am not in the Lutheran forum. I am here, with you, and wish to discuss the standard you apply to the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet fail to hold that same standard to the Lutherans in terms of doctrine.

For the record, I know of no 'burning at the stake' occuring for many centuries because of disagreement over doctrine. Did it occur in centuries past? Yes. Was that limited to the Catholic church? No. I suggest you study enough history to understand the persecution of the Anabaptists by their fellow Protestants, and how the burning of witches increased after the Reformation in places like Denmark. And a reading of Luther's works on the Jews might impress upon you the importance of recognizing all our fathers in the faith as sinners in need of redemption, whose words and actions have not always reflected Christianity in its proper light.

I do understand that within Lutheranism there can be great inconsistency in beliefs, and it would be incorrect to paint all "groups" with a broad brush. But I see nothing that allows for "pious opinion" in this statement from the Missouri Synod regarding the acceptance of the Lutheran Confessions:

We accept the Lutheran Confessions as articluated in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are drawn from the Word of God and on that account regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church.

Yet, within that true and binding exposition, we see the assertion that Mary's virginity remained inviolate during the birth of Christ.

So I ask you again -- how is this different in terms of the Orthodox/Catholic view of the perpertual virginity doctrine?

 

[Thekla]

1. IMHO, it is possible for a couple to have had an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies without having children resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible (or even have children AT ALL - mentioned in the Bible or not). Perhaps you fundamentally disagree. Why, I know a couple that has no children and yet they specificly told me they "tried for years" (I take that to mean each is not a perpetual virgin). So, I don't agree with your argument that if other children of Mary are not specificly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. Nor does it confirm to me that such an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the wife (but not husband) impure - as is given as the reason for the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Catholics and Orthodox.

2. If you want to discuss the CONFESSIONS of the Lutheran Church, you might want to take that to the Lutheran forum. It is well known that Luther and some of the Lutheran Church Fathers embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - at least early in their lives. We all know that. However, was it dogma (the Lutheran Confessions don't make this uniquely Catholic distinctions between various levels of truth; the Confessions are just that - not necessarily dogmas)? As I've explained repeatedly before (to no avail), to see, we must determine two things: Is it specifically taught as something that must be believed? Simply using a common TITLE for Mary or expressing a faith is not the same as declaring dogma - not in ANY denomination. Secondly, how was the view treated? Luther was surrounded by Lutheran pastors, teachers and theologians that did NOT embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Where they excommunicated for that? Did Luther condemn them as heretics? Was there DIFFERENT pious opinion permitted, even welcomed? Or were they condemned, excommunicated and burned at the stake (in not infrequent style of the RCC in those days)? Several times, I've shared with you that Protestants embrace something we call pious opinion. These are views (perhaps even very passionate ones) that are NEITHER substantiated or denied by Scripture BUT have solid, historic, ECUMENICAL embrace. One is permitted to embrace and teach such (even in a document later made a part of the Book of Concord), but one is not bound to such, one may do as I do and have no opinion on it or one may disagree with it and not embrace it. SCRIPTURE is our rule. We've been all over this, um, how many times?????



Since you'd rather discuss the RCC DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER, then I'd repeat AGAIN my questions to and requests of you (ignored for longer than I can remember, in numerous threads, over many, many months):

1. Please show us how the dogmatic view that Our Lady never once had sex is a STRONGER and OLDER position in the Bible (or even your own single denomination's "tradition") than is the dogmatic position of 49,997 denominations - SILENCE?

2. Please explain from Scripture (or even your own single denomination's own earliest "tradition") how it is that a single, loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the WIFE impure and defiled (but not the husband) so that if Mary even once shared such, she'd be impure?

3. Please explain why there this obsession on the part of your denomination (to the level of DOGMA) on the "bedroom activities" of this holy couple after Jesus was born? Why is it so very critical to our salvation and to Jesus being our Savior? Why is it that a single instance of mutual, loving, respectful sharing of intimacies say years after Jesus was born would make our salvation moot and Jesus not our Savior; how would it so horribly defile not only Mary but Jesus? Of course, NORMALLY, the "bedroom activities" of a married couple is regarded as private and respected, but here it is shouted, broadcast in the loudest, boldest, possible way, throughout all the world and to all generations as a matter of highest importance to US: "MARY AND JOSEPH HAD MARITAL SEX NOT ONCE!!!" Why?





.

If you visit the "Protestant" thread in Mariology, you will see several posts referenced which might assist you to understand ... although I'm not certain the explanation quite matches the hyperbolic emphasis of your questions.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, I believe that Jesus did have brothers and sisters that were born of Mary. But honestly, I'm not sure if that is true or not. I know that that is what I believe but I do not know if my belief is true or not.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, Mary was a virgin her entire life.

 

[Senix]

No, Mary was a virgin her entire life.

And you reconcile that with Matthew 13:55 and 27:56 how?

Matthew 13:55-57 says:
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him.

Clearly they are talking about Jesus' blood-family, as it intended to be an insult at him.

Matthew 27:56 says:
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

These two verses state quite clearly that Mary had other children after Jesus. Matthew 1:25 is also very clear that Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus' birth with the use of the term "until." That is, they didn't get it on until after Jesus' birth.

I don't understand, why are you so committed to this position of Mary's virginity that you are willing to blantly ignore what Scripture clearly says on the topic? Why is this so important to you, if I can ask?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You missed the fact that Joseph and Benjamin's brothers are all from different mothers to their own mother, yet they are called brothers and not half-brothers in scripture. Also, are Solomon's half brothers referred to by scripture as brothers or half-brothers? Your post above implied the latter which I don't believe is an accurate representation.

John

We know that because we are told that. But no where in the New Testament are we told that Joseph had kids prior to Christ being born nor did Joseph have kids with other wives after Christ's birth. In those scriptures we are told that Christ had brothers and sisters.

None of the prophesies in the Old Testament had the Messiah being an only child while here on earth.

 

[Thekla]

In Matthew, the term of reference for Herod's brother is "adelphos"; it is known historically (extra-Biblical sources) that they were half brothers.

The semantic range of the Greek term "adelphos", like its Hebrew equivalent, is broad. The Greek includes approximately 10-12 relationships (attested in both scriptural and vernacular Hellenistic usage).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, Mary was a virgin her entire life.

Substantiation, please....
Or is this simply your non-binding, personal OPINION to which all others are free to disagree and such would have no implications for their salvation or relationship to Christ.




.

 

[narnia59]

And you reconcile that with Matthew 13:55 and 27:56 how?

Matthew 13:55-57 says:
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him.

Clearly they are talking about Jesus' blood-family, as it intended to be an insult at him.

Matthew 27:56 says:
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

These two verses state quite clearly that Mary had other children after Jesus. Matthew 1:25 is also very clear that Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus' birth with the use of the term "until." That is, they didn't get it on until after Jesus' birth.

I don't understand, why are you so committed to this position of Mary's virginity that you are willing to blantly ignore what Scripture clearly says on the topic? Why is this so important to you, if I can ask?

So Joseph is Jesus' "blood" family?

What exactly do you think the definition of "until" is?

And a verse that would state clearly that Mary had other children would be one that said "Mary had other children".

 

[narnia59]

We know that because we are told that. But no where in the New Testament are we told that Joseph had kids prior to Christ being born nor did Joseph have kids with other wives after Christ's birth. In those scriptures we are told that Christ had brothers and sisters.

None of the prophesies in the Old Testament had the Messiah being an only child while here on earth.

And nowhere are we told that Joseph and Mary conceived children together. None of the prophesies speak to brothers and sisters. Which very much leaves open exactly who those brothers and sisters were, which given the culture and usage of the words, more than one, even two answers are quite possible within the context of what Scripture tells us. It's only when people bring the words forward into today's culture and language usage they become so 'clear'.

Which is what has always confused me about those who go by scripture alone. To assert that Mary had other children (instead of saying scripture really does not specify) confuses me greatly.

 

[kiwimac]

The Greek used to talk of Jesus' brothers and sisters does just that, not cousins or anything else. The early church had no problem at all accepting that Mary of Nazareth had sexual relations with Joseph her husband and produced children. It is only the EO and RCC churches which insist she HAD to be forever virgin. Frankly, it's a lot of hooey.

 

[Thekla]

The Greek used to talk of Jesus' brothers and sisters does just that, not cousins or anything else. The early church had no problem at all accepting that Mary of Nazareth had sexual relations with Joseph her husband and produced children. It is only the EO and RCC churches which insist she HAD to be forever virgin. Frankly, it's a lot of hooey.

By "the early Church", do you mean the Ebionites, or in general, and how is this confirmed ?

The word "adelphos" does not only mean sibling or cousin; how is the assertion of the narrowed definition supported ?

Why is an opposing position characterized by you as "a lot of hooey"; this seems a very thin "argument".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

By "the early Church", do you mean the Ebionites, or in general, and how is this confirmed ?

The word "adelphos" does not only mean sibling or cousin; how is the assertion of the narrowed definition supported ?

Why is an opposing position characterized by you as "a lot of hooey"; this seems a very thin "argument".

Ah, I remember discussing them on the Messianic/Jewish board awhile back.......if you are not an Ebionite, you cannot be saved.........BEWARE THE CIRCUMCISION! ehehe

Ebionite Community -- Restoring the Way of the Ancient Evyonim, Yahwism, and Renewed Covenant

*snip*

We declare the man Paul of Tarsus, the false teacher against the mark of Covenant and God's Torah, to be outside of the Way taught by Yeshua, the anointed, son of Maria and Yosef. The Ebionite Community is the only real "mission to the gentiles

 

[Senix]

So Joseph is Jesus' "blood" family?

What exactly do you think the definition of "until" is?

And a verse that would state clearly that Mary had other children would be one that said "Mary had other children".

As for the first point, you don't think that the Jews actually believed that Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, do you? As far as they were concerned, he was the actual son of Joseph and Mary.

As for the second point, until usually refers to circumstances coming about and then doing an action. The verse clearly states that Joseph and Mary did not have sex until Jesus' birth, what does that imply to you? That after that, they did. It is a logical conclusion.

And finally, point three: that is exactly what the verse states. There is no need for any interpretations - it is clearly what it states. Mary, the mother of James, the brother of Jesus. James is the one never believed that Jesus was who the Messiah until after his death and resurrection. As Jesus said, No prophet has honour among his own people.

Look, if you want to believe that Mary was a virgin for the rest of her life, then that's your choice. But the Bible clearly states otherwise.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And nowhere are we told that Joseph and Mary conceived children together. None of the prophesies speak to brothers and sisters. Which very much leaves open exactly who those brothers and sisters were, which given the culture and usage of the words, more than one, even two answers are quite possible within the context of what Scripture tells us. It's only when people bring the words forward into today's culture and language usage they become so 'clear'.

Which is what has always confused me about those who go by scripture alone. To assert that Mary had other children (instead of saying scripture really does not specify) confuses me greatly.

The thing I love about the bible, is that, when someone says something, and it is not true, the writer will tell you what is not true: for example:

John 4:1-3

Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.​

And you see this, a lot throughout scripture. It will correct a wrong statement or thought made by those in the people.

So when Mark 6:3 states

"is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.​

And does not correct us, and it makes an assertion that they are His brothers and sisters, then I'm going to trust scripture and believe it. Besides, its not like the scripture says that the Messiah will be an only child.

You also got to give it up to the bible, in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary's "firstborn". (NKJV).

 

[Thekla]

Firstborn is a medical and religious term (prima para is still used for a first pregnancy, multi para for subsequent pregnancies, until the sixth when the term grand multi para is used).

 

[narnia59]

As for the first point, you don't think that the Jews actually believed that Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, do you? As far as they were concerned, he was the actual son of Joseph and Mary.

As for the second point, until usually refers to circumstances coming about and then doing an action. The verse clearly states that Joseph and Mary did not have sex until Jesus' birth, what does that imply to you? That after that, they did. It is a logical conclusion.

And finally, point three: that is exactly what the verse states. There is no need for any interpretations - it is clearly what it states. Mary, the mother of James, the brother of Jesus. James is the one never believed that Jesus was who the Messiah until after his death and resurrection. As Jesus said, No prophet has honour among his own people.

Look, if you want to believe that Mary was a virgin for the rest of her life, then that's your choice. But the Bible clearly states otherwise.

"Clearly" states would be a statement such as "Mary had other children", or "Mary no longer remained a virgin". What we have instead is culture and language from 2000 years ago, and a lot of assumptions.

First point -- as far as the Jews were concerned, would any children of Joseph's not have been Jesus' brothers as well? Without Scripture specifically saying they were born of Mary, how can people explicitly state they are hers? Scripture does not.

Point two -- key word --"usually". In modern day English, people make an assumption that 'until' means a change in condition occurs after the specified point in time. That is not part of the definition of the word 'until'. Look it up. It simply means that a specific state was in place up to a specific point in time. It makes no assumption about what occurs afterward. There are many cases in Scripture where 'until' is used and it's quite clear the state continued on after the specified point in time, there was not a change. Yet because of modern day assumptions about sex and marriage, people draw a conclusion where scripture does not specify.

Third -- I must be missing something, but where does it state in that passage this is James, the brother of Jesus? There are two apostles named James as well. In fact, by the use of the term James the 'younger', that points to a relationship with another James, which points more to the second apostle James than it does the brother of Jesus. And let's not forget there were three Mary's at the foot of the cross as well. Mary the wife of Clopas (identified as Mary's sister) was there along with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. At any rate, identifying a woman as Mary the mother of James and Joseph -- why would you assume this is also Mary the mother of Jesus which Scripture doesn't identify her as being?

I will be the first to admit that Scripture alone does not specify one way or the other. But to state it "clearly" shows Mary had other chldren? I think that's thinking based out of tradition.

 

[narnia59]

The thing I love about the bible, is that, when someone says something, and it is not true, the writer will tell you what is not true: for example:

John 4:1-3

Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.
​

And you see this, a lot throughout scripture. It will correct a wrong statement or thought made by those in the people.

So when Mark 6:3 states

"is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.
​

And does not correct us, and it makes an assertion that they are His brothers and sisters, then I'm going to trust scripture and believe it. Besides, its not like the scripture says that the Messiah will be an only child.

You also got to give it up to the bible, in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary's "firstborn". (NKJV).

And Scripture also says Joseph is his father, so do you trust and believe that as well?

And Hebrews refers to Christ as God's firstborn. Using your logic, God also had other children besides Jesus.