Did Jesus have a brother???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raphael

Active Member
May 30, 2002
139
4
Visit site
✟341.00
Faith
Catholic
<DIV>i've been looking for a thread about this here but haven't found it yet.&nbsp; what do you guys think of this?</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A limestone burial box, almost 2000 years old, may provide the oldest archeological record of Jesus of Nazareth, according to several experts who announced the finding Monday.
</DIV>

<DIV>The ossuary, as the bone boxes are known, dates to 63 A.D. and has an inscription in Aramaic which translates to: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," said Andre Lemaire, an expert in ancient writing who identified the writing on the box in Jerusalem last spring.</DIV>

<DIV>
</DIV>

<DIV>Writing about his findings in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Lemaire, who teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris, calls it "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus' brother James, the leader of the early church in Jerusalem.</DIV>

<DIV>
Some scholars expressed doubt that the box, which is 20 inches long by 11 inches wide, could be definitively linked to Jesus, a Jewish carpenter by trade revered by Christians as the son of God.
</DIV>

<DIV>"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."

While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life. Two scientists from the Israeli government's Geological Survey tested the box last month -- inspecting the surface patina and inscription under a microscope. They concurred that the object is more than 19 centuries old, the archaeology magazine reported.

"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that these three names refer to the personages so identified in the New Testament," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.
</DIV>

<DIV>Many of the conclusions reached by experts relied on the inscription written on the ossuary. The boxes commonly were used by Jewish families between 20 B.C. and 70 A.D. to store the bones of their loved ones.</DIV>

<DIV>
</DIV>

<DIV>The inscription reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," according to scholars.

Lemaire said out of hundreds of such boxes found with Aramaic writing only two contain mentions of a brother. From this, scholars infer that the brother was only noted when he was someone important.

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. And Lemaire estimates that there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in that city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph. But it is unlikely there would have been more than one James who had a brother of such importance that it merited having him mentioned on his ossuary, Lemaire said.

Lemaire found the box in June by accident, said Shanks, who was able to inspect the box personally. The owner is reported to be a collector of ancient Jewish artifacts. The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, bought the box some 15 years ago from an antique dealer for $200 to $700, Shanks said.

The boxes "are not popular on the market because ... people don't want a bone box in their living room," Shanks said.

The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. And he only discovered the interest in the object when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.

The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks added. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"</DIV>

<DIV>
Plans are under way to exhibit the box at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada during the annual meeting of Bible scholars in November, Shanks said.

But he said whether or not the box belonged to Jesus' brother, it still provides a powerful link with the past.

"This is something that provides a bridge over time," he said. "My reaction is not so much excitement as it is awe."</DIV>
 

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
For an article on the brothers of the Lord, see here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

As for the ossuary, I think it's a great find. I spent a while reading about it last night, and I find it fascinating. They really cannot prove that it was the Jesus and James of the Bible, but nonetheless, it is a fascinating piece of history... and I like to think it is a Holy Relic. :)

Neal
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by paulewog
/me thinks he had a couple brothers, actually

Sure Jesus had brothers, however the New Testament never states that they all share the same mother. One possibility is that they were the sons of Joseph (like the ossuary states) from a prior marriage (with Joseph being a widower prior to marrying Mary).
 
Upvote 0

Jenna

Senior Veteran
Jun 13, 2002
3,089
192
Michigan
Visit site
✟4,598.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
While I know that it goes against Catholic belief to support the idea that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, I believe that there is a very strong case for it. There are always people who will argue over whom is being refered to as Jesus' brothers, whether they were speaking of the apostles or any number of other people, but it does seem that in a book where the language is so specific that if God had meant for it to say something other than "brothers", it would have. :) Still, like so many things, it is always up for debate. I would challenge that it makes no real difference though, because the gravity of Mary's acceptance of God's will is not measured by whether or not she had other children after Jesus. She could still not be viewed as anything less than a wonderful servant of our Lord.



Matthew 12:46-50

46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[7]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
 
Upvote 0

Raphael

Active Member
May 30, 2002
139
4
Visit site
✟341.00
Faith
Catholic
i've been always taught that the Blessed Mother was a virgin her entire life. i'm finding this a bit shocking and i don't know what to make of it. i would like to agree with nyj but would like some scripture to go along with it? bah, like jenna says, it shouldn't matter. but it's just too big a thing for me to just "forget."
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To Jenna, Paul, and Raphael:

Please understand, the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic. And in ARAMAIC, there are no words for cousin. If you were related to someone, in some remote way, that person was your "brother."

There are writings available which were contemporary to the Scriptures which fully explain the family relationships in Palestine at the time of Christ. A study of languages and history is often necessary to get a full meaning of the Bible. That is why there are so many, many different interpretations of Scripture.


Peace,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Raphael
i've been always taught that the Blessed Mother was a virgin her entire life. i'm finding this a bit shocking and i don't know what to make of it.

What is a shock to you? The ossuary that states James is the brother of Jesus? Or the fact that I mentioned that Joseph might have been a widower? Or that Mary may not have been a virgin her entire life?

The Protoevangelium of James states that James is a son of Joseph, a widower, and is a detailed account of the betrothal of Joseph to Mary. This has been known by the Catholic Church for quite sometime (millenium) and should not come as any surprise.

Originally posted by Raphael
i would like to agree with nyj but would like some scripture to go along with it?

Exactly what would you like scripture for? Contrary to what Jenna stated (sorry Jenna :) ), aramaic was not a "precise language", not at least to the extent that English is. Add to that the fact that culturally, mediteranean culture is way different, focusing on a larger, more extended family. St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin from both Greek and Hebrew texts wrote an entire apologetic work on the meaning of the word "brethren" to Helvidius, defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's been a while since I've defended the perpetual virginity of Mary, let me see if I can hunt down some of my old resources.


Letter to Helvedius - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Do some research, Paul. The earliest texts of the NT which have been discovered in modern times do NOT date from the Ascension, or any time near that period. Furthermore, Biblical scholars have analyzed the Greek sentence structure and have determined that the Greek is most likely a translation from Hebrew.


Peace,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by paulewog
/ me understands that... although, the Bible was inspired in Greek, I thought

St. Jerome, who translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, writes of examining the Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew.

Originally posted by paulewog
/ me did notice that the quoted verses had "sister" in it too, though. Kinda interesting to think about.

Note however, that the word for sister shares the same root word as that for brother. Adelphos.
 
Upvote 0

Jenna

Senior Veteran
Jun 13, 2002
3,089
192
Michigan
Visit site
✟4,598.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What really amazes me is the lengths to which people will go to explain how it could be for Mary to remain a virgin. So, there is no word for cousin, so they might have been refering to a cousin of Jesus'. Ok, so what if they weren't? What if they really did mean "brother"? To me, it just seems to be a non-issue, the mole hill turned into a mountain. :) Is the continued virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth THAT important? Really? It has no real bearing on salvation or whether or not she was a great woman. Even if she were to have had a hundred children after Jesus, it still does not take away the bravery and self-lessness of her act in following the will of God. It just leaves me to wonder why it would be something to go back and forth over, you know? Why is Mary's virginity or lack thereof so important?

With greatest love,
Jenna
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To Jenna:

To Catholics, it is the ones who insist that Joseph must have claimed his marital rights with Mary following the birth of Jesus who are the ones making such a big deal.

Mary was the Mother of God. She held God made flesh, Immanuel, within her body. The honors the Catholic Church bestows upon her recognizes her place far above the rest of us mortals (although we do not say she is divine) and her submission to God's will is an example to us all. The arguments for the Immaculate Conception and for Mary's Assumption into Heaven all stem from the understanding that she was a virgin, and remained so all of her life.

Does it deal directly with salvation? No. But understanding Mary's role in the life of Jesus helps us to see the great lengths to which God went in order to give us His Son.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Jenna
What really amazes me is the lengths to which people will go to explain how it could be for Mary to remain a virgin.

I don't think that people are going to "great lengths" to explain how it was possible. For over a 1500 years the default position was that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. It's a belief that even Luther, Calvin and Wesley believed.

Originally posted by Jenna
So, there is no word for cousin, so they might have been refering to a cousin of Jesus'.

Actually, there is a greek word for cousin, anespios but it is only used once in the New Testament.

Originally posted by Jenna
Ok, so what if they weren't? What if they really did mean "brother"?

I think they are the brothers of Jesus, the point of contention though is, do Jesus and His brothers share the same birth mother? Scripture has no direct insight into this question. Tradition says that if they are His brothers, they had a different mother.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Here is a good article, complete with Scripture citations, which explains who the bretheren of the Lord were. The link to the article can be found on page one, the second post.

The Brethren of the Lord
A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.

Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren".

(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Pe[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.
 
Upvote 0

Raphael

Active Member
May 30, 2002
139
4
Visit site
✟341.00
Faith
Catholic
Originally posted by nyj
What is a shock to you? The ossuary that states James is the brother of Jesus? Or the fact that I mentioned that Joseph might have been a widower? Or that Mary may not have been a virgin her entire life?

...that Mary may not have been a Virgin her entire life.&nbsp;


Exactly what would you like scripture for? Contrary to what Jenna stated (sorry Jenna :) ), aramaic was not a "precise language", not at least to the extent that English is. Add to that the fact that culturally, mediteranean culture is way different, focusing on a larger, more extended family. St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin from both Greek and Hebrew texts wrote an entire apologetic work on the meaning of the word "brethren" to Helvidius, defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's been a while since I've defended the perpetual virginity of Mary, let me see if I can hunt down some of my old resources.

thanks nyj, but this is actually enough.&nbsp; i've heard a little about that whole meaning of "brethren" before so i knew i shouldn't have overreacted the way i did.&nbsp;

Originally posted by VOW
To Jenna, Paul, and Raphael:

Please understand, the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic. And in ARAMAIC, there are no words for cousin. If you were related to someone, in some remote way, that person was your "brother."

There are writings available which were contemporary to the Scriptures which fully explain the family relationships in Palestine at the time of Christ. A study of languages and history is often necessary to get a full meaning of the Bible. That is why there are so many, many different interpretations of Scripture.


Peace,
~VOW

thanks much for this explanation also.&nbsp; all is good in the world...
 
Upvote 0

Extirpated Wildlife

Wanted: Room to Roam
Oct 3, 2002
1,568
35
56
Fort Worth
Visit site
✟17,091.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by VOW

Does it deal directly with salvation? No. But understanding Mary's role in the life of Jesus helps us to see the great lengths to which God went in order to give us His Son.

I appreciate your insight. I left this statement above to comment on. I have an understanding to which great lengths God went in to give us His Son. I don't question the role Mary played. But i do question the Tradition that the Catholic church hold in the role of Mary. Jesus himself tells us that Mary is no different than us. I hold Mary in the same place as John the Baptizer, Moses, David, Abraham, and Paul, to name a few. Those people played as big of a role as she did.

The tradition that Mary was a virgin all her life is that. Tradition. It does not hold any factual basis. It a tradition, or should i say speculation, that has become a stronghold of the Catholic church, in my eyes. Nothing wrong with it, neccesarily. But without proof, both the speculation that she is a virgin for life and the speculation that she was married to Joseph and consumated their marriage can neither be found wrong, whether those brothers of Jesus are Mary's or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.