Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[Breckmin]

Where was the concept "sex is dirty" introduced into the discussion?

Often Catholics make the illogical argument that Mary was Holy and
therefore a virgin.

How does this answer any of the points raised; this is non-responsive.

Your points were inductive. All my other points I would make would be
inductive also...I was providing one point that applies to God's creation
of marriage and how it models the Holy Covenant between Christ and
the church. The deduction was made regarding 100% of all lawful
marriages in Christ and how the sexual reationship is sanctioned and
made Holy by God's intent.

We can go back and forth on raising specifics in historical argument.
My point was addressing Mary's need for holiness (which I believe
comes through Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice and NOT her perpetual
virginity. - there is no reason for it).

 

[Breckmin]

Christianity also understands the significance of abstinence within marriage (see St. Paul, for ex.).

Why would Mary and Joseph need to abstain??? What is the purpose of
their abstinence in this case?

Do you mean to suggest that it was required of all Jewish and Christian couples in that era to engage in sexual relations ?

You don't need a law to read about leaving your father and mother
and clinging to your wife - "and the two shall become one flesh."

It was a common practice of married couples to engage in normal
sexual relations. Does this even need to be said?

If they did have normal sexual relations - Mary would have gotten
pregnant multiple times if she and Joseph were both healthy.

Why wouldn't Mary have relations with her own husband?

 

[Thekla]

Often Catholics make the illogical argument that Mary was Holy and
therefore a virgin.

I am not RC, and it seems not all RC make this argument.

Your points were inductive.

Not all of them; many have not been answered.
The persistent misreading of adelphos, the conversation between Gabriel and Mary -- these are textual.

All my other points I would make would be
inductive also...I was providing one point that applies to God's creation
of marriage and how it models the Holy Covenant between Christ and
the church. The deduction was made regarding 100% of all lawful
marriages in Christ and how the sexual reationship is sanctioned and
made Holy by God's intent.

A fuller treatment is needed, though; the model can be applied to chaste marriages as well. The assumption that all marriages require sex to be marriage is perhaps a matter of cultural loading. As the Bible does not state whether Joseph and Mary were married, it seems curious to appeal to the model you propose.

We can go back and forth on raising specifics in historical argument.
My point was addressing Mary's need for holiness (which I believe
comes through Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice and NOT her perpetual
virginity. - there is no reason for it).

Holiness of course comes from God, through Christ's sacrifice. But this seems wide of the discussion of her virginity; how does this make her virginity a matter of "no reason". It doesn't seem to follow. Perhaps you could explain what the relationship is between these two points.

But, again, it seems the scriptural and (non-scriptural) historical references are persistently skipped.

 

[MrPolo]

Why would Mary and Joseph need to abstain??? What is the purpose of
their abstinence in this case?

It is peculiar to ask why do they "need" to abstain, when if that's your reason for denial, you could deny the Resurrection on the grounds that why did God "need" to get bloody scourged and die. Or you could turn into an atheist who doubts everything the Church believes about Jesus saying "Why does it have to be like this, or that, or this...."

Nevertheless...if you want a fair theological reason "why" they would have abstained, one reason is in light of the marital covenant. God brought forth His only Son through Mary by the Holy Spirit. If you understand the fruit of marriage, it is to bring forth life in children. Mary is in this sense the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Mary belongs to God in this theological sense. She was "known" to God in this theological sense. God is properly called Jesus' Father. Mary is properly called Jesus' mother.

Now Joseph, being a righteous man, would have every reason to respectfully participate in this very unusual circumstance by not violating the intimate bond that Mary alone in all history shared with the Creator.

 

[MrPolo]

Thekla and you quote the Greek and ignore the Hebrew culture of the time which would have looked askance at anyone capable of more than one child who did not have them.

In Hebrew culture, it was fairly unusual for a woman to beget the Incarnate Word of God. The case about which we are speaking is not a normal Hebraic situation. If we insist on applying our understanding of Hebrew culture onto the characters in salvation history, we must then argue that the Bible is wrong when it speaks of Paul remaining celibate. After all, it was Hebrew culture for a man to grow up and take a wife. Genesis calls for it. Jesus must also have been married and we can all go watch the Da Vinci Code and praise the truth of which it speaks based on its "evidence" of "well, that's just the way it had to be."

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every Hebrew couple necessarily had to have been seen by society as bringing forth more than one child. If one would like to argue that such a couple was forced to endure "askance," one should attempt to put forth historically contemporary evidence that couples seen by society bringing forth only one child went through this vicious gauntlet. Following that, one must put forth evidence that there were zero Hebrew couples with less than 2 children. Following that, one has to put forth evidence that if Mary and Joseph didn't raise more children than Jesus, then so what if society looked at them funny?

 

[MrPolo]

Mary is not the Ark

Mary is the New Testament fulfillment of the Ark:

The Ark and Mary both were overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and became the dwelling place of God. (Ex 40:34-35; Lk 1:35)

The Ark contained the 10 commandments (the Word), manna (bread), and the rod of Aaron (the priest). Mary contained Jesus (The Word, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest). (Dt 10:3-5; Hb 9:4; Jn 1:1; Jn 6:35; Hb 5:9-10)

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom. Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah to the home of Elizabeth. (2 Sam 6:1-11; Lk 1:39)

Dressed in priestly dress approached the Ark and leapt for joy. John the Baptist, son of a priest would would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary approached. (2 Sam 6:16; Lk 1:43)

David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" Elizabeth asks about Mary, "Why is this granted unto me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9; Lk 1:42)

The Ark remained at the house of Obed-edom for 3 months. Mary remained at Elizabeth's house for 3 months. (2 Sam 6:11; Lk 1:56)

And so many more...my fingers are tired....

 

[kiwimac]

You are seriously suggesting that Mary of Nazareth was MARRIED to God?

 

[Breckmin]

You gentlemen are clearly talking me out of Mary being the new Eve.

It is the true Church of born-again believers throughout the world and
all the various denominations that is the bride - NOT Mary...

Time for a new pole.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mary is the New Testament fulfillment of the Ark:

The Ark and Mary both were overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and became the dwelling place of God. (Ex 40:34-35; Lk 1:35)

The Ark contained the 10 commandments (the Word), manna (bread), and the rod of Aaron (the priest). Mary contained Jesus (The Word, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest). (Dt 10:3-5; Hb 9:4; Jn 1:1; Jn 6:35; Hb 5:9-10)

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom. Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah to the home of Elizabeth. (2 Sam 6:1-11; Lk 1:39)

Dressed in priestly dress approached the Ark and leapt for joy. John the Baptist, son of a priest would would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary approached. (2 Sam 6:16; Lk 1:43)

David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" Elizabeth asks about Mary, "Why is this granted unto me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9; Lk 1:42)

The Ark remained at the house of Obed-edom for 3 months. Mary remained at Elizabeth's house for 3 months. (2 Sam 6:11; Lk 1:56)

IMHO...


AMAZINGLY pressed. Stretching things beyond any possible credibility. Reminds me of a post I read at another website awhile back I think trying to make the point (these things are very hard to follow) that President Kennedy was like a reincarnation or something of President Lincoln, because (one item on a very long list), President Lincoln's secretary was Mrs. Kennedy and President Kennedy's secretary was named Mrs. Lincoln.


But all this is entirely moot to anything whatsoever. Okay, let's say that Mary had no other children. Okay. An interesting (and entirely moot) tidbit of info. There has NEVER been a dogma in ANY denomination that says she did (or did not) have other children. Now, it becomes relevant ONLY in the sense that some Protestants use it, that IF Our Lady had other children then obviously (well, it SHOULD be) she must have had ______ after Jesus was born and thus the Dogma that Mary Never Once had ______ EVER is false. Obviously, that dogma would be heresy IF Mary had other children. The problem is, they can't substantiate that She did. But the lack of substantiation there does NOT suggest that the only dogma related to this is true. I think most of us are aware that not every single time a couple has _____ results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible, or even a child at all. Unless the Catholic or Orthodox wants to substantiate that it is a biological fact that every single time a woman has ________, a child is born as a result of such (and such will be named in the Bible), then the lack of other children means NOTHING in terms of substantiating their dogmatic insistance that Mary never once had ______ (and how often someone has ___is evidently regarded as an issue of greatest importance).





.

 

[lionroar0]

IMHO...


AMAZINGLY pressed. Stretching things beyond any possible credibility. Reminds me of a post I read at another website awhile back I think trying to make the point (these things are very hard to follow) that President Kennedy was like a reincarnation or something of President Lincoln, because (one item on a very long list), President Lincoln's secretary was Mrs. Kennedy and President Kennedy's secretary was named Mrs. Lincoln.


But all this is entirely moot to anything whatsoever. Okay, let's say that Mary had no other children. Okay. An interesting (and entirely moot) tidbit of info. There has NEVER been a dogma in ANY denomination that says she did (or did not) have other children. Now, it becomes relevant ONLY in the sense that some Protestants use it, that IF Our Lady had other children then obviously (well, it SHOULD be) she must have had ______ after Jesus was born and thus the Dogma that Mary Never Once had ______ EVER is false. Obviously, that dogma would be heresy IF Mary had other children. The problem is, they can't substantiate that She did. But the lack of substantiation there does NOT suggest that the only dogma related to this is true. I think most of us are aware that not every single time a couple has _____ results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible, or even a child at all. Unless the Catholic or Orthodox wants to substantiate that it is a biological fact that every single time a woman has ________, a child is born as a result of such (and such will be named in the Bible), then the lack of other children means NOTHING in terms of substantiating their dogmatic insistance that Mary never once had ______ (and how often someone has ___is evidently regarded as an issue of greatest importance). .

Looks like it's finally starting to sink in Mary being Ever Virgin has little to do with sex and has more to do with a sign of her being Holy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But all this is entirely moot to anything whatsoever. Okay, let's say that Mary had no other children. Okay. An interesting (and entirely moot) tidbit of info. There has NEVER been a dogma in ANY denomination that says she did (or did not) have other children. Now, it becomes relevant ONLY in the sense that some Protestants use it, that IF Our Lady had other children then obviously (well, it SHOULD be) she must have had ______ after Jesus was born and thus the Dogma that Mary Never Once had ______ EVER is false. Obviously, that dogma would be heresy IF Mary had other children. The problem is, they can't substantiate that She did. But the lack of substantiation there does NOT suggest that the only dogma related to this is true. I think most of us are aware that not every single time a couple has _____ results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible, or even a child at all. Unless the Catholic or Orthodox wants to substantiate that it is a biological fact that every single time a woman has ________, a child is born as a result of such (and such will be named in the Bible), then the lack of other children means NOTHING in terms of substantiating their dogmatic insistance that Mary never once had ______ (and how often someone has ___is evidently regarded as an issue of greatest importance).



.

Looks like it's finally starting to sink in Mary being Ever Virgin has little to do with sex

The DOGMA that Mary Never Once Had ____ is, at its very core, about _____. It's why the word "Virginity" is used in the title of the DOGMA. I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. WHY some might be embarrassed by an issue their denomination screams is an issue of highest importance is beyond me, but anyway, the dogma is about Mary and ______. Its core is whether Mary had _____ or not after Jesus was born. It's the core, the focus, the centerpiece, the foundation of the DOGMA. Obviously.


What is clear to me is that all the Catholic desires to say that Mary had no other children has nothing to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No _____ Ever. No Catholic seems willing to substantiate from biology that every single time a couple has _____, a child results that is specifically named in the Bible so that if it cannot be substantiated that Mary had other children, THEREFORE she must have never once had _____ (the dogma they are trying to defend and substantiate), that entire Catholic "apologetic" is entirely baseless and moot.





.

 

[lionroar0]

The DOGMA that Mary Never Once Had ____ is, at its very core, about _____. It's why the word "Virginity" is used in the title of the DOGMA. I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. WHY some might be embarrassed by an issue their denomination screams is an issue of highest importance is beyond me, but anyway, the dogma is about Mary and ______. Its core is whether Mary had _____ or not after Jesus was born. It's the core, the focus, the centerpiece, the foundation of the DOGMA. Obviously.


What is clear to me is that all the Catholic desires to say that Mary had no other children has nothing to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No _____ Ever. No Catholic seems willing to substantiate from biology that every single time a couple has _____, a child results that is specifically named in the Bible so that if it cannot be substantiated that Mary had other children, THEREFORE she must have never once had _____ (the dogma they are trying to defend and substantiate), that entire Catholic "apologetic" is entirely baseless and moot.

.

The same can be said about her having children as the Bible does not say that she had children and when one looks to history. History does not mention any other children of Mary other then Jesus.

Mary being a Virgin is not moot and both biblical and historical evidence is staked against you and all who think that Mary had children.

Are you denying that her Virginity is a sign of her Holyness (sp?)? Be very careful with your answer here.

 

[lionroar0]

The DOGMA that Mary Never Once Had ____ is, at its very core, about _____. It's why the word "Virginity" is used in the title of the DOGMA. I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. WHY some might be embarrassed by an issue their denomination screams is an issue of highest importance is beyond me, but anyway, the dogma is about Mary and ______. Its core is whether Mary had _____ or not after Jesus was born. It's the core, the focus, the centerpiece, the foundation of the DOGMA. Obviously.


What is clear to me is that all the Catholic desires to say that Mary had no other children has nothing to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No _____ Ever. No Catholic seems willing to substantiate from biology that every single time a couple has _____, a child results that is specifically named in the Bible so that if it cannot be substantiated that Mary had other children, THEREFORE she must have never once had _____ (the dogma they are trying to defend and substantiate), that entire Catholic "apologetic" is entirely baseless and moot.

This is also a very worldly answer that can't see past sex and puts sex on a pedestal. Like the world does.

The world will have one belive that one has to have sex to be human.

Is this what modern Christianity has sunk to?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The DOGMA that Mary Never Once Had ____ is, at its very core, about _____. It's why the word "Virginity" is used in the title of the DOGMA. I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. WHY some might be embarrassed by an issue their denomination screams is an issue of highest importance is beyond me, but anyway, the dogma is about Mary and ______. Its core is whether Mary had _____ or not after Jesus was born. It's the core, the focus, the centerpiece, the foundation of the DOGMA. Obviously.


What is clear to me is that all the Catholic desires to say that Mary had no other children has nothing to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No _____ Ever. No Catholic seems willing to substantiate from biology that every single time a couple has _____, a child results that is specifically named in the Bible so that if it cannot be substantiated that Mary had other children, THEREFORE she must have never once had _____ (the dogma they are trying to defend and substantiate), that entire Catholic "apologetic" is entirely baseless and moot.


.

can't see past sex and puts sex on a pedestal.

Very odd...

Of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only 2 or 3 have any official position about Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born. The other 49,997 says NOTHING about _____ and Mary at all. Two or three regard the issue as a matter of highest importance. Who is focusing on _____, and who is not? Who is putting _____ on a pedestal and who is respectfully seeing past this?

OBVIOUSLY, the core and center of this DOGMA is that Mary never once had _____, ever. It is regarded as a matter of highest importance for your denomination. Of course 49,997 don't share your extreme interest and focus on the ____ life of Mary after Jesus was born.


Friend, the loud shout and extreme focus on Mary's ____ life is entirely and solely on the side of 2 or 3 denominations - including yours. As a matter of highest importance. It's entirely untouched by the other 49,997.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The same can be said about her having children as the Bible does not say that she had children

Right. Which may why none of the world's 50,000 denominations have any doctrine about that.

What I noted is that the Catholic apologetic in defense of it's very strong emphasis on Mary's _____ life after Jesus was born is moot. This constant apologetic of Catholics that: "It cannot be proven that Mary had other kids - ergo Mary never once had _____" is just absurd. Pray tell: where is the biological substantiation that every single act of _____ results in the birth of a child specifically mentioned in the Bible (or at all)? The whole apologetic is moot. Actually, silly.


Now, the OPPOSITE is relevant. IF it can be shown that Mary had other children, then it's logical she must have had _____ and the Catholic denomination's dogma is heresy. But, alas, such cannot be proven. It's a relevant point - but it fails to reveal the view to be heretical.


The Dogma - the issue that 2 or 3 denomination shout and stress and focus on as a matter of highest importance - is at its very core that Mary never once had ______. THAT is what needs to be substantiated, to the level of dogma.

Oh, and the earliest Tradition is respectful silence about how often Mary had _____ after Jesus was born. And that's the position of 49,997 of the 50,000 denominations. Two or three are riveted, focused, zeroed in on an issue: How often Mary had ____ after Jesus was born. The rest (if they consider this AT ALL) are silent. Just as the Bible is.



.

 

[Thekla]

The view that some "denominations shout" is a rather condescending (mis) characterization and seems to be born of a bias or personal repulsion. Perhaps more even-toned terminology can be used.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Right. Which may why none of the world's 50,000 denominations have any doctrine about that.

What I noted is that the Catholic apologetic in defense of it's very strong emphasis on Mary's _____ life after Jesus was born is moot. This constant apologetic of Catholics that: "It cannot be proven that Mary had other kids - ergo Mary never once had _____" is just absurd. Pray tell: where is the biological substantiation that every single act of _____ results in the birth of a child specifically mentioned in the Bible (or at all)? The whole apologetic is moot. Actually, silly.


Now, the OPPOSITE is relevant. IF it can be shown that Mary had other children, then it's logical she must have had _____ and the Catholic denomination's dogma is heresy. But, alas, such cannot be proven. It's a relevant point - but it fails to reveal the view to be heretical.


The Dogma - the issue that 2 or 3 denomination shout and stress and focus on as a matter of highest importance - is at its very core that Mary never once had ______. THAT is what needs to be substantiated, to the level of dogma.

Oh, and the earliest Tradition is respectful silence about how often Mary had _____ after Jesus was born. And that's the position of 49,997 of the 50,000 denominations. Two or three are riveted, focused, zeroed in on an issue: How often Mary had ____ after Jesus was born. The rest (if they consider this AT ALL) are silent. Just as the Bible is.


.

The view that some "denominations shout" is a rather condescending

1. I wonder if you read anything else in the post?

2. When something is singled out as an issue of most importance, that IS a sharp focus, and may be characterized as a "shout" (a matter of greatest importance would not be a "whisper" lol). IF it offends you that 2 or 3 denominations regard Mary's _____ life to be a matter of highest importance, then IMHO, it might be best to take that up with those denominations (including your own) rather than with those who have no position at all, of any level or status at all. I simply note that for 2 or 3, it IS dogma and the topic of this thread is relevant only to that - since no denomination has a dogma of "Jesus - The Only Child" or "Jesus Had Siblings." The discussion of siblings is typically a part of the discussion of a DOGMA in 2 or 3 denominations, the one about Mary's ____ life.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[lionroar0]

1. I wonder if you read anything else in the post?

2. When something is singled out as an issue of most importance, that IS a sharp focus, and may be characterized as a "shout" (a matter of greatest importance would not be a "whisper" lol). IF it offends you that 2 or 3 denominations regard Mary's _____ life to be a matter of highest importance, then IMHO, it might be best to take that up with those denominations (including your own) rather than with those who have no position at all, of any level or status at all. I simply note that for 2 or 3, it IS dogma and the topic of this thread is relevant only to that - since no denomination has a dogma of "Jesus - The Only Child" or "Jesus Had Siblings." The discussion of siblings is typically a part of the discussion of a DOGMA in 2 or 3 denominations, the one about Mary's ____ life.


Pax


- Josiah

.

No position at all??? I would have to disagree as you keep posting a caricature of those who believe in Mary's Ever Virginity. Two or three Churches. It's more then two or three.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

No position at all??? I would have to disagree

I don't know why you believe I'm lying. As I've stated, I have no position regarding how often Mary had ____ after Jesus was born. I have no position at all on whether that was zero time or one hundred times or six thousand times - I just don't have a position on that. Not as personal theory. Not as pious opinion. Not as formal teaching. Not as doctrine. Not as dogma. Nope. I just have no position. Just like the 49,998 denominations of the 50,000 some Catholics around here claim exist. I'm silent on the subject, just like the Bible. I think you know that. I'm quite on record in this regard. Sorry you think I'm lying about that.

Of course, some DO have a position. A very, very strong one. Elevated to the very highest, most important, most stressed level possible.

Two or three Churches. It's more then two or three.

Not that I'm aware of. I know of 2: The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't know about the Oriential Orthodox - I've asked but haven't gotten an answer. I just don't know. So, it's two and maybe three denominations. Now, if Catholics are right and there are 50,000 denominations, then 49,998 (or maybe 49,997) take my stance: they have no position, they are silent about Mary's _____ life. But 2 (and maybe 3) regard the topic to be one of highest importance, quite altogether and sharply focused on it. Does this offend you? IF so, are you bothered that 49,998 are silent and choose to not talk about this, not focus the bright, constant, focused light of dogma on the ____ life of Our Lady? Or that your denomination does? IF you are uncomfortable in some way, I'm sad for you. But the dogma is what it is and does need to be discussed: in fact, being dogma, it would be a matter of discussion above all else, on the level of most important of all topics.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

1. I wonder if you read anything else in the post?

2. When something is singled out as an issue of most importance, that IS a sharp focus, and may be characterized as a "shout" (a matter of greatest importance would not be a "whisper" lol). IF it offends you that 2 or 3 denominations regard Mary's _____ life to be a matter of highest importance, then IMHO, it might be best to take that up with those denominations (including your own) rather than with those who have no position at all, of any level or status at all. I simply note that for 2 or 3, it IS dogma and the topic of this thread is relevant only to that - since no denomination has a dogma of "Jesus - The Only Child" or "Jesus Had Siblings." The discussion of siblings is typically a part of the discussion of a DOGMA in 2 or 3 denominations, the one about Mary's ____ life.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Yes. In fact, over the past year or so I have read these statements of yours reiterated in a multitude of posts. The same wording is frequently posted verbatim. And the 'tenor and timbre' of the posts has been consistent as well.