Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I will also again quote Martin Luther's explanation of the 8th. Commandment:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.​

What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.



I don't see Mary excluded here.

I could not agree more.....


In my Catholic days, this was stressed to us (Catholics seem to agree with Luther on this point, lol). Our teachers STRESSED that to share a personal story about someone (especially one potentially offensive, embarrassing, and just not necessary) without personal confirmation of its truthfulness, this (we were told) is the Church's definition of "gossip" and is a serious violation of this Commandment, ie, it is specifically "sin." I agree with you, Mark, Mary should not be exempted from this - as if Her reputation is the LEAST important of any person.


OF COURSE (being formally Catholic - and sharing much Catholic spirituality), I am certain that NOTHING - absolutely nothing - hurtful is meant here. Normally, this would be an obvious and undeniable example of gossip and a shockingly obvious example of disrespect and violation of privacy - but such is clearly NOT what's going on HERE. Catholics LOVE Her as much as I do, I have concluded (to make a generality). They would say, do and believe NOTHING amiss concerning Her. I know that. INTENT, motive, "heart" does not come into play for me here (although I know it OFTEN does for Protestants). Knowing the "heart" here, I treat this differently than I do ALL OTHER cases just like this. While the opinion itself PUZZLES me (and I will continue to seek to understand this until I'm no longer puzzled; and if I'm anything, I'm persistent!!!!!), the aspect of this that is my singular focus is the STATUS of it. As dogma. Why is THIS issue SO very, very, very important for all persons to know and believer as a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth? Why is THIS (how often Our Lady participated in the LOVING, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage) SO, SO important as to be Dogma? Even entirely passing on the issues of gossip, respect and privacy? As pious opinion, I'm puzzled but not offended (my own pastor embraces this teaching, as most Marian views). I'm not even concerned since I know the "heart" in this. As dogma, I'm troubled.


For some, LOVE seems to make them "go there" and stress (to the highest possible level, in the strongest possible way) that Mary had no sex ever (an intimate detail of Her marital life, Her marriage bed, a matter NORMALLY - we all agree - supremely private and "off limits"). For others, this SAME love makes them NOT 'go there' - at least as DOGMA. I don't question the love of either. I am puzzled as to where that leads (AND WHY). As I've mentioned a few times over these past 6 years, I don't question hearts, I do question if THIS is (and should be) DOGMA. AND.... I PERSONALLY am struck by the reality that for CENTURIES, silence seems to have been the "position" here. Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all that knew the Apostles, all that lived when Mary did - and for a few generations after - all were silent on this point. That seems to ME to be the original, oldest Tradition, the Apostolic Tradition if you will. Just something important TO ME (I seem to be rare in that).


As often noted, if we just don't care about Mary - then we won't care about THIS. We won't care if it's true, we won't care if the shouting of it is respectful and absolutely necessary. For SOME Protestants, I think that's the case. It's largely "off radar" because Mary is. For others of us, our LOVE for Mary - our profound reverence, respect, esteem, admiration - our LOVE means we CARE. Thus, the passionate level of these discussions.... For ME, my love for the church and my prayer for unity of her also means I CARE when DOGMA is presented to divide her.


Thanks, Mark.


May all Advent blessings be yours....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Kristos]

I don't think there is a difference of Tradition on the issue of EV and therefore children from the Theotokos, so I don't see how the picking and choosing is relevant for the discussion at hand. The 5th Ecumenical Council set it down. Everyone who accepts this council essentially accepts the EV.

 

[Kristos]

The protoevangellium spoke only to her state at/upon Jesus' birth. Not her future virginity.

As to extreme piety, I take it you simply mean her dedication to God. Just like Jephthah's daughter. That idea (consecrated to God as a life-time virgin) should be developed further IMO to support the notion of the PV of Mary. Does it show up in the second temple period?

It's a few years since I read the whole thing, but I remember the PE of James support the EV - maybe not explicitly but definitely implicitly.

I think it's also important to consider the second Adam implications - the first Adam was the only one taken from the earth, the virgin earth - nothing before nothing after (Eve was taken from Adam, no?) So the second Adam was also taken from "virgin" soil, that is Mary's flesh and none other after. Again it's implicit, but with all the implicits it's really hard to fathom that the opposite is even a viable alternate.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's a few years since I read the whole thing, but I remember the PE of James support the EV - maybe not explicitly but definitely implicitly.

It says nothing about it at all. It also says nothing about Jesus having no siblings. EVEN IF we were to just entirely ignore it's rejected, nonauthoritative status.

The reason this late, rejected book is at times quoted is to reveal that it eventually was opinioned that Joseph was much older than Mary and that St. Joseph had children by a previous marriage. It does reveal that at least one had those opinions by the mid Second Century. But again, it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual.... anything and says nothing about Jesus having or not having any siblings. As if what this rejected letter says has any signficance anyway.





.

 

[Standing Up]

It says nothing about it at all. It also says nothing about Jesus having no siblings. EVEN IF we were to just entirely ignore it's rejected, nonauthoritative status.

The reason this late, rejected book is at times quoted is to reveal that it eventually was opinioned that Joseph was much older than Mary and that St. Joseph had children by a previous marriage. It does reveal that at least one had those opinions by the mid Second Century. But again, it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual.... anything and says nothing about Jesus having or not having any siblings. As if what this rejected letter says has any signficance anyway.





.

It's sorta a weird idea to suggest that Mary was incapable of separating herself to God, that she only "married" a much older "barren" man similar to David and Abishag.

 

[Standing Up]

It's a few years since I read the whole thing, but I remember the PE of James support the EV - maybe not explicitly but definitely implicitly.

I think it's also important to consider the second Adam implications - the first Adam was the only one taken from the earth, the virgin earth - nothing before nothing after (Eve was taken from Adam, no?) So the second Adam was also taken from "virgin" soil, that is Mary's flesh and none other after. Again it's implicit, but with all the implicits it's really hard to fathom that the opposite is even a viable alternate.

There's probably numerous OT typings and shadows that might be suggested. We've seen two---Eve and Jephthah's daughter.

 

[Kristos]

It says nothing about it at all. It also says nothing about Jesus having no siblings. EVEN IF we were to just entirely ignore it's rejected, nonauthoritative status.

The reason this late, rejected book is at times quoted is to reveal that it eventually was opinioned that Joseph was much older than Mary and that St. Joseph had children by a previous marriage. It does reveal that at least one had those opinions by the mid Second Century. But again, it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual.... anything and says nothing about Jesus having or not having any siblings. As if what this rejected letter says has any signficance anyway.





.

You never read it did you. Searching for proof texts doesn't count I gave you chapters that reference these things 2 years ago. In any case it doesn't matter because I didn't bring it up. I was merely commenting on SUs post. So back to the 5th EC. Nothing else is really needed its just icing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You never read it did you.

Oh, I've not only read it, I've posted it VERBATIM, in it's entirety, here at CF on numerous occasions.

This REJECTED, nonauthoritative book says NOTHING about Mary being perpetually.... anything, and says NOTHING about Jesus having (or not having) siblings.



.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


Closing this thread for review.


Edit - An attempt was made to do a thread clean up. Though a number of posts were removed, this thread is still off topic

It is staying closed.