Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

Thank you. I try to keep the discussion respectful and focused on the core issue at hand. I appreciate you posting that, my friend!

I confess it concerns me, a tad, that some in the denominations that have this strong, focused, view about Mary's ____ life seem to be bothered by the discussion of the very issue so stressed by the dogma they defend, so I TRY to keep it as respectful as possible. I appreciate that it's acknowledged. Thanks again.


Back to the issue. And why this issue of Mary's ____life is SO important to 2 or 3 denominations, and whether the supposed lack of siblings to Jesus is an apologetic for this dogma...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Thekla]

Thank you. I try to keep the discussion respectful and focused on the core issue at hand. I appreciate you posting that, my friend!

I confess it concerns me, a tad, that some in the denominations that have this strong, focused, view about Mary's ____ life seem to be bothered by the discussion of the very issue so stressed by the dogma they defend, so I TRY to keep it as respectful as possible. I appreciate that it's acknowledged. Thanks again.


Back to the issue. And why this issue of Mary's ____life is SO important to 2 or 3 denominations, and whether the supposed lack of siblings to Jesus is an apologetic for this dogma...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

This is what I actually stated (the sentence you deleted is bolded):

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. __________________

The use of the term "shout" has a patronizing tone. Combined with the timbre and (often verbatim, as if pasting the same rather than composing anew your statement) repetitious nature of your posts over the course of a year, one is left with the impression that this is thinly veiled condescension.


And, regardless of the various answers provided, curiously the same questions typically with the same phrasing reappear (ad nauseum). Why is that ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thank you. I try to keep the discussion respectful and focused on the core issue at hand. I appreciate you posting that, my friend!

I confess it concerns me, a tad, that some in the denominations that have this strong, focused, view about Mary's ____ life seem to be bothered by the discussion of the very issue so stressed by the dogma they defend, so I TRY to keep it as respectful as possible. I appreciate that it's acknowledged. Thanks again.


Back to the issue. And why this issue of Mary's ____life is SO important to 2 or 3 denominations, and whether the supposed lack of siblings to Jesus is an apologetic for this dogma...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

This is what I actually stated:

And again, thank you. I DO try to be consistently respectful.

And yes, the core issue is singular and simple - so yes, conversations about such are not likely to be broad or complex.

The reason several posts are on this topic is because:
1. Your denomination regards it as DOGMA, an issue of greatest importance - and thus one that NEEDS to be discussed. When something is declared to be of greatest importance, then it's of greatest need to discussion.
2. Some seem to be oddly evasive; questions need to be asked repeatedly - and yet often are STILL ignored. But, if I'm anything - it's persistent. Especially when it comes to dogma. Particularly one that so clearly divides Protestants from Catholics, Protestants holding no position and Catholics insisting that this issue of Mary's ____ life is of greatest importance.
3. I've been informed that some belonging to the 2 or 3 denominations that teach this are uncomfortable with discussing their dogma, so I try to be careful in this discussion. I thank you that you have acknowledged this care on my part. Wording things so that we discuss the core issue - yet with care doesn't permit a LOT of variance in wording - at least for me. One better at wordcraft might not have such limitations. Sorry, my degree is in physics, not writing. But again, I appreciate you posting kind things about it.

The use of the term "shout" has a patronizing tone.

Not to me, and thus there's no intent. Odd, to me, how you constantly pick out ONE WORD in a whole post, seeming to ignore everything else, and just twist that one word any which way, trying to put the worse possible construction on it. I'm sure it's not your intent and it's only seeming. Anyway, it's just a figure of speech (dogmas don't speak, you know). If there is an insistence that something is a matter of greatest important, lifted to the very highest level, given highest priority - that probably wouldn't be a quiet whisper, would it?

one is left with the impression that this is thinly veiled condescension.

Odd how you could post such nice things to me, and then.....

If YOU are seeing "thinly veiled condescension" then YOU are are putting it there.

I'm TRYING to discuss something 2 or 3 denominations (including yours) insist is a matter of highest importance: Mary's ____ life. Your denomination has a very strong, focused, insistent position on that - and you have established yourself as an apologist for that position. Thus, the conversation.

IF you are troubled by the topic, I'm sorry. It's NOT my position - it's yours. I'm not defending it, you are. I don't have a position on this and thus it is impossible for my position to cause any emotional response at all. I'm discussing your issue: Mary's ____ life AND it's status as dogma. And in this thread, how a supposed situation of Jesus having no siblings is an apologetic for this bold insistence that Mary had no ____ ever.

Don't be concerned, my full unseparated sister. I'm as patient as I am persistent, lol....





Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[lionroar0]

.





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. .

The reality is that the core of the Dogma is that her Virginity is a sign of her Holiness and God's grace.

This has been stated over and over but then you just repost the same caricature of it as you just did above and make it about having or not having sex.

Then you post some numbers as if it's supposed to mean something.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The reality is that the core of the Dogma is that her Virginity is a sign of her Holiness and God's grace.

1. Then it would be called, "The Dogma of the Purity of Mary." It's not. It's called, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary"

2. As I'm sure you know, the word "Perpetual" means "always, continuously, for all time." The word "virginity" means to not have ___. Put to two together and connect it to Mary. There you are. The Catechism makes ONE application of this dogma. It is that THEREFORE Mary could not have had other children and Jesus had no siblings, the CC understands that the Dogma is that Mary had no ____, not once, THEREFORE She could not have had other children. That's the only application the Catechism makes, and it CLEARLY is an application of the view that She had no _____. When I asked my Catholic teachers to explain this dogma, the response was, "It means what it says, Mary was a virgin not only at the Annunciation but always - she never had ____." Yup. That's the dogma. That's the title. That's the application. Let's not skirt around the issue here, let's not play word games. It is what it is. We all know it. Why the extreme desire to not discuss it? It is DOGMA which means we should discuss it above all, it's a matter of highest importance.

3. I think you have the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception confused with the Dogma of Mary Had No ___ Ever. The Immaculate Conception is about Her holiness and purity, the Perpetual Virinity of Mary is about Mary being a perpetual virgin. And has the Catechism itself explains, "virginity" here means not having ___.

4. Now, I don't deny that - as always with Our Blessed Lady - there is a spirituality that has become connected to the teaching. As I've been noting for 4 years around here, I KNOW the dogma in popular, common, popular embrace is not LIMITED to the issue of the dogma - that Mary Had No _____ Ever. But the dogma IS that Mary Had No ____ Ever. As I've worded it here, it is the core. Let's just be honest, okay?

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.


.

You post numbers as if they are suppose to mean something.

Again, you've been making the point that I'm putting issues of _____ on a pedestal, making a major issue of such.

Of course, I have no position AT ALL about Mary's ____ life. And I'm hardly alone! Of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, 49,998 have no position. They aren't focused on Her ____ life. At all. On any level. But we have two denomination that regard such to be a matter of highest priority and importance - they actually have a DOGMA about the issue! I think you have the situation entirely reversed.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[Thekla]

And again, thank you. I DO try to be consistently respectful.

And yes, the core issue is singular and simple - so yes, conversations about such are not likely to be broad or complex.

The reason several posts are on this topic is because:
1. Your denomination regards it as DOGMA, an issue of greatest importance - and thus one that NEEDS to be discussed. When something is declared to be of greatest importance, then it's of greatest need to discussion.
2. Some seem to be oddly evasive; questions need to be asked repeatedly - and yet often are STILL ignored. But, if I'm anything - it's persistent. Especially when it comes to dogma. Particularly one that so clearly divides Protestants from Catholics, Protestants holding no position and Catholics insisting that this issue of Mary's ____ life is of greatest importance.
3. I've been informed that some belonging to the 2 or 3 denominations that teach this are uncomfortable with discussing their dogma, so I try to be careful in this discussion. I thank you that you have acknowledged this care on my part. Wording things so that we discuss the core issue - yet with care doesn't permit a LOT of variance in wording - at least for me. One better at wordcraft might not have such limitations. Sorry, my degree is in physics, not writing. But again, I appreciate you posting kind things about it.






Not to me, and thus there's no intent. Odd, to me, how you constantly pick out ONE WORD in a whole post, seeming to ignore everything else, and just twist that one word any which way, trying to put the worse possible construction on it. I'm sure it's not your intent and it's only seeming. Anyway, it's just a figure of speech (dogmas don't speak, you know). If there is an insistence that something is a matter of greatest important, lifted to the very highest level, given highest priority - that probably wouldn't be a quiet whisper, would it?






Odd how you could post such nice things to me, and then.....

If YOU are seeing "thinly veiled condescension" then YOU are are putting it there.

I'm TRYING to discuss something 2 or 3 denominations (including yours) insist is a matter of highest importance: Mary's ____ life. Your denomination has a very strong, focused, insistent position on that - and you have established yourself as an apologist for that position. Thus, the conversation.

IF you are troubled by the topic, I'm sorry. It's NOT my position - it's yours. I'm not defending it, you are. I don't have a position on this and thus it is impossible for my position to cause any emotional response at all. I'm discussing your issue: Mary's ____ life AND it's status as dogma. And in this thread, how a supposed situation of Jesus having no siblings is an apologetic for this bold insistence that Mary had no ____ ever.

Don't be concerned, my full unseparated sister. I'm as patient as I am persistent, lol....





Pax


- Josiah





.

Perhaps you could summarize what you have learned from the answers (and linked information) given in response to your questions over the past year; knowing what you do understand would help to know what you do not understand before proceeding. Thus, instead of repeating the same questions and posts ad nauseum, an actually responsive summary given by you would assure those reading that this is not just a sort of "game" you are playing.

 

[Dorothea]

To see this poll is quite disappointing to see so many Christians following incorrect teachings.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To see this poll is quite disappointing to see so many Christians following incorrect teachings.

Define incorrect and according to who?

 

[Dorothea]

Define incorrect and according to who?

If they're not the teachings of the Church from the beginning, through the EC's, then they're incorrect. Simple, really.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If they're not the teachings of the Church from the beginning, through the EC's, then they're incorrect. Simple, really.

Ahhhh....Thanks

 

[Mobiosity]

Dogma, theory, superstition, doctrine; it doesn't matter what you call it; unless you were in bed with Joseph and Mary - you don't know whether they ever made love or not. No one does. The reports are all, at best, second hand.

 

[Dorothea]

Let me ask a common sense question. If you carried God in your womb for 9 months, gave birth to Him and raised Him, would you want anything else in you after that experience? Would the thought even come to your mind after God had dwelt in your womb? It's a no-brainer to me. The last thing on my mind would be being with a man in any way, let alone to procreate. All of that wouldn't matter (and I don't think it ever truly was a big issue for Mary, as she was quite a dedicated servant of God from the beginning, hence God choosing her). Nope, the only thing that would be on my mind was following my Son, worshipping God, and serving Him. Everything else would be irrelevent in my life. Of course, this is my view on this as far as guessing what it would be like because I'm not Mary, and certainly pale in comparison to her dedication and faith to Christ/God, but I can only imagine what she felt, and I would pretty much think going back to a regular "life" in the terms of anything but ascetic or what have you would have been the furthest from her mind.

 

[narnia59]

Dogma, theory, superstition, doctrine; it doesn't matter what you call it; unless you were in bed with Joseph and Mary - you don't know whether they ever made love or not. No one does. The reports are all, at best, second hand.

I personally think that from a scripture-alone basis, that is the most honest and objective answer.

 

[narnia59]

Let me ask a common sense question. If you carried God in your womb for 9 months, gave birth to Him and raised Him, would you want anything else in you after that experience? Would the thought even come to your mind after God had dwelt in your womb? It's a no-brainer to me. The last thing on my mind would be being with a man in any way, let alone to procreate. All of that wouldn't matter (and I don't think it ever truly was a big issue for Mary, as she was quite a dedicated servant of God from the beginning, hence God choosing her). Nope, the only thing that would be on my mind was following my Son, worshipping God, and serving Him. Everything else would be irrelevent in my life. Of course, this is my view on this as far as guessing what it would be like because I'm not Mary, and certainly pale in comparison to her dedication and faith to Christ/God, but I can only imagine what she felt, and I would pretty much think going back to a regular "life" in the terms of anything but ascetic or what have you would have been the furthest from her mind.

Dorothea, your point is well taken. How can we believe that this was not a life-altering experience for her, and there would be an easy returning to the 'norm' afterwards? For Joseph either, as far as that goes. He believed that Mary had been over-shadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceived a child who was God incarnate, and gave birth to him. None of us can put ourselves in their positions, but we can be certain it was not a 'normal' anything from that point forward for either of them.

 

[rosenherman]

Let me ask a common sense question. If you carried God in your womb for 9 months, gave birth to Him and raised Him, would you want anything else in you after that experience? Would the thought even come to your mind after God had dwelt in your womb? It's a no-brainer to me. The last thing on my mind would be being with a man in any way, let alone to procreate. All of that wouldn't matter (and I don't think it ever truly was a big issue for Mary, as she was quite a dedicated servant of God from the beginning, hence God choosing her). Nope, the only thing that would be on my mind was following my Son, worshipping God, and serving Him. Everything else would be irrelevent in my life. Of course, this is my view on this as far as guessing what it would be like because I'm not Mary, and certainly pale in comparison to her dedication and faith to Christ/God, but I can only imagine what she felt, and I would pretty much think going back to a regular "life" in the terms of anything but ascetic or what have you would have been the furthest from her mind.

I have another common sense question. Why is it important whether she had just Jesus, or had a dozen others?

 

[narnia59]

I have another common sense question. Why is it important whether she had just Jesus, or had a dozen others?

It's important to me for a couple of reasons. One, I think it puts Mary in a position of being 'borrowed' by God and then when He was finished using her, he returned her to Joseph in that sense. I think it objectifies Mary, and images God as truly using her instead of entering into a covenant relationship with her to mother his son.

Second, I think it diminishes the image of Christ, for there is no one worthy to enter the world through the same womb. Period. There is none worthy to come after Christ in any sense. He is the Alpha and the Omega in all ways, including as child of Mary.

 

[rosenherman]

You do realize that God didn't need anyone to bear Jesus for Him, He could have spoken Him into existence as He did the universe. Why would He have asked Mary and Joseph to give up the greatest joy of marriage?

 

[Catherineanne]

The Bible is not clear on this point, but tradition certainly is. Tradition tells us very clearly, and unequivocally, that Mary is a perpetual Virgin, and that the Lord was her only child. The brothers of the Lord mentioned in Scripture are children of Joseph by a former marriage.

As has been said, there is no way of proving this either way, but I am happy to accept that this is a point on which I am uninformed, but for which tradition has a very clear answer, both in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and therefore also in High Anglicanism.

Even if 'Perpetual Virgin' proves ultimately to be only to be an honorific, it is at least erring on the side of polite caution. To me, it is an appropriate way of regarding the Theotokos, and all else is not for us to speculate about.

 

[Catherineanne]

You do realize that God didn't need anyone to bear Jesus for Him, He could have spoken Him into existence as He did the universe. Why would He have asked Mary and Joseph to give up the greatest joy of marriage?

All those generations of ancestors in preparation, and then magic the Lord out of a hat? I don't think so.

I think you are mistaking 'God's plan' for 'God's need'. The two are not the same; the Lord was the most planned baby in the whole history of the world.

Meanwhile, I think you will find that the greatest joy of marriage is parenthood. Nothing else comes anywhere near.

 

[Catherineanne]

I have another common sense question. Why is it important whether she had just Jesus, or had a dozen others?

Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. It would be rather bizarre for him at the same time to be just one of a crowd for his mother.