Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[pablope]

yes, b/c he thought that she had been unfaithful…
and?
probably…it was something married people did

this is a very odd question…I thought that sex between married partners was a wonderful thing….a very nice gift from God and not something that defiled the female participant. Do Catholic husbands think that their wives are defiled by sex?

Huh…what is odd…you responded to a question I was not asking…I was asking about the point of view of Joseph…if you put yourself in his shoes:

Q:
If you were in Joseph’s shoes, after an angel tells you this…and you realize that Mary is holy and favoured of God…and she is carrying a child of the Holy Spirit…a special child…from God…would you be thinking of sex after the birth of the Child?

Radical…probably…it was something married people did

So if you were St. Joseph…after the angel has just spoken to you…after you learned the Child is of God…would you still be thinking and demanding of sex? You would not put your libido in check?

Q:Would you even dare to defile the woman and have carnal relations with her?

Radical…this is a very odd question…I thought that sex between married partners was a wonderful thing….a very nice gift from God and not something that defiled the female participant. Do Catholic husbands think that their wives are defiled by sex?/

I was not asking about catholic husbands and wives…I was asking about Joseph’s perspective…so if you were St. Joseph…after the events before the birth of Jesus…and after the Nativity…seeing the angels singing and the star and the Magi, the angel telling you to flee to Egypt…you found out you have a holy woman put aside by God to carry His son…so you would still have the temerity to have carnal relations? to have sex? you would dare, you would have the temerity to defile Mary by demanding sex from her? You would dare defile her, is she chose to still remain a virgin?

 

[po18guy]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply by that question. You had asked if Mary’s referring to herself as a bondslave, or handmaiden as some translations render it, means anything. Yes, the use of that term, according to Net Bible, signifies that someone is showing humility and respectful self-depreciation in the presence of great men, prophets and kings. It was entirely appropriate as part of Mary’s showing a willingness to submit to and follow the plan Gabriel had told her about. I don’t think there’s any further import to the word.

Was Mary with Jesus from the Annunciation to the Tomb? And, from there to the Pentecost? Sounds like a bond slave of the Lord to me. Handmaid, if you prefer. And, this is strictly by the fragmentary, incomplete biblical record. But, words have meaning - particularly in that age, when a mans name defined who he was, and his word was his bond.

 

[po18guy]

Mark 6:3…

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

What does that mean?

 

[jrtrent]

What does that mean?

With respect to Mark 6:3, it means that the people in Nazareth were skeptical and critical of Jesus’s putting himself forth as some great teacher because they were well aware of his rather ordinary background.

With respect to this thread, it is another reason why the Church of Christ might teach that Jesus had siblings. The Macarthur Study Bible directs the reader to see the footnote for Matthew 12:46, which reads, "These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. Matthew explicitly connects them with Mary, indicating that they were not cousins or Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage, as some of the church fathers imagined. They are mentioned in all the gospels (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus’ brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well (13:55; Mark 6:3).

 

[Porknpie]

Mark 6:3…

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

“Brothers” and “Sisters” also mean: nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters.

Similar meaning In Acts 1:15…unless you believe St. Peter had 120 brothers…and presumably 120 sisters…

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

you mean like Tertullian?

high esteem? it was rejected by Aquinas, Jerome, popes Damasus, Innocent I and Gelasius (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3 and Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals p 128) Both Jerome and Aquinas viewed the Protoevangelium as being in conflict with scripture…hardly the type of work that should be the launch pad of a dogma.

And yet, no one seriously questioned the content of the Protoevangelium regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Or are you aware of some ancient document contradicting the Protoevangelium or taking issue with this teaching? By all means, let’s see it.

Otherwise, the plain fact of the matter is that the early Church accepted the PPV as fact (because eyewitness accounts handed down from one generation to the next said that it was), and no one raised objections when the Protoevangelium was written.

In contrast, Jerome objected to Helvidius’ claim to the contrary, and Helvidius himself remained silent (as far as we can tell) after Jerome’s rebuke. The earliest of the Protestant reformers all held that Mary remained a virgin - despite their radical opposition to much “Catholic” theology. This was one doctrine that they had no problem with.

So, you hold to a relatively modern theological novelty, a mere denominational preference, concerning the matter, but you have offered nothing in the way of evidence that disproves (or even seriously call into question) the ancient teaching that Mary remained ever-virgin.

Do you have something of substance or not? If so, let’s hear it. :coffeeread:

 

[Randy_Carson]

you mean like Tertullian?

Here is what Jerome had to say about Tertullian (In On Illustrious Men):
Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

I’m not sure what point you think you are making. It is true that Tertullian began life as a solid, faithful Catholic - but in the end he fell into heresy. Some of what he wrote is acceptable and some is not. But this might be true of any of the ECF’s.

Cyprian may have enjoyed reading some of Tertullian’s works produced while he was yet holding to the Orthodox faith, but Jerome ultimately dismisses him as someone who has left the true Church.

Either way, none of Tertullian’s work is inspired scripture, and Tertullian was not infallible. So, when Helvidius quotes the heretic Tertullian in support of the idea that Mary did not remain a virgin, Jerome was on safe ground to dismiss the argument because it simply did not square with what Jerome knew to be the tradition of the Church. It was a novelty.

In the end, the Church’s official teaching is the only infallible guide, and at the Lateran Council in 649, Pope Martin I proclaimed solemnly: Mary is virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

The Protestant reformers were aware of this, but NONE of them rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Your rejection of it is a modern tradition of men. It is a novelty.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not sure what point you think you are making. It is true that Tertullian began life as a solid, faithful Catholic - but in the end he fell into heresy. Some of what he wrote is acceptable and some is not. But this might be true of any of the ECF’s.

Cyprian may have enjoyed reading some of Tertullian’s works produced while he was yet holding to the Orthodox faith, but Jerome ultimately dismisses him as someone who has left the true Church.

Either way, none of Tertullian’s work is inspired scripture, and Tertullian was not infallible. So, when Helvidius quotes the heretic Tertullian in support of the idea that Mary did not remain a virgin, Jerome was on safe ground to dismiss the argument because it simply did not square with what Jerome knew to be the tradition of the Church. It was a novelty.

In the end, the Church’s official teaching is the only infallible guide, and at the Lateran Council in 649, Pope Martin I proclaimed solemnly: Mary is virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

The Protestant reformers were aware of this, but NONE of them rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Your rejection of it is a modern tradition of men. It is a novelty.

Great explanation! :bowdown2:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Further, let’s take some time to look at how Jerome argued for the PVM. In attacking how Helvidius used the scriptures Jerome took pains to be extremely thorough, however, when it comes to attacking how Helvidius utilized tradition Jerome’s thoroughness evaporates. Instead of dealing with the tradition in detail, Jerome resorts to a sweeping statement and a misrepresentation. Here is all that he had to say:
Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.
Notice how this dismissal of Tertullian contrasts with the assessment of Tertullian found in Jerome’s On Illustrious Men…seems a touch hypocritical…and it demonstrates how desparate Jerome was…he really had nothing with which to counter Tertullian

So, you’re quoting Jerome who cites “Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men…[who] held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom.”?

If all of these men held that Mary remained ever-virgin, how is this helping your agurment?

 

[po18guy]

With respect to Mark 6:3, it means that the people in Nazareth were skeptical and critical of Jesus’s putting himself forth as some great teacher because they were well aware of his rather ordinary background.

With respect to this thread, it is another reason why the Church of Christ might teach that Jesus had siblings. The Macarthur Study Bible directs the reader to see the footnote for Matthew 12:46, which reads, "These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. Matthew explicitly connects them with Mary, indicating that they were not cousins or Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage, as some of the church fathers imagined. They are mentioned in all the gospels (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus’ brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well (13:55; Mark 6:3).

Sadly, the CoC is forced to rely on the anti-biblical doctrine of private interpretation of scripture. Thus, there is no guarantee that they will teach without error. In this case, the ancient universal Church has declared revealed truth. Disputing that revealed truth is essentially arguing with the Lord, as in John 6:60-66. Still, that is a 2,000 year old tradition in itself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

With respect to Mark 6:3, it means that the people in Nazareth were skeptical and critical of Jesus’s putting himself forth as some great teacher because they were well aware of his rather ordinary background.

No, it means that they THOUGHT they knew Jesus’ “rather ordinary background” - how he lived and his circumstances of life, but in fact, they were ignorant of the truth about Jesus’ divinity, etc.

With respect to this thread, it is another reason why the Church of Christ might teach that Jesus had siblings. The Macarthur Study Bible directs the reader to see the footnote for Matthew 12:46, which reads, "These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. Matthew explicitly connects them with Mary, indicating that they were not cousins or Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage, as some of the church fathers imagined. They are mentioned in all the gospels (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus’ brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well (13:55; Mark 6:3).

I understand why this study bible needs to push in a particular direction, but there are two possibilities that do not require them to be uterine brothers of Jesus: 1) they were half-brothers through Joseph’s previous marriage (he is thought to have been much older than Mary) or 2) they were kinsmen of Jesus.

Isn’t it curious that the scriptures always refer to these guys as “brothers of Jesus” but never as “sons of Mary”?

Ever stopped to consider why that might be?

 

[Erich]

Why is Mary’s perpetual virginity such a big deal?

This link should help.

Mark 6:3…

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

This was already covered, to some extent, in post #16, but here’s something else I came across years ago (though, several computer upgrades later, I have lost track of the original link):

There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[Sarcelle]

Sadly, the CoC is forced to rely on the anti-biblical doctrine of private interpretation of scripture. Thus, there is no guarantee that they will teach without error. In this case, the ancient universal Church has declared revealed truth. Disputing that revealed truth is essentially arguing with the Lord, as in John 6:60-66. Still, that is a 2,000 year old tradition in itself.

Each Church of Christ is independent of each other. It is not unusual for two Churches of Christ to have radically differing interpretations of the Bible. It gets quite confusing.

I do agree, the CoC does believe that Mary had other children aside from Jesus.

 

[andrewstx]

Each Church of Christ is independent of each other. It is not unusual for two Churches of Christ to have radically differing interpretations of the Bible. It gets quite confusing.

I do agree, the CoC does believe that Mary had other children aside from Jesus.

It is also true that there are very different demoninations each using the name “Church of Christ”. They range from the liberal United c of C, to the very conservative/fundamentalist accapella churches of Christ. They are very popular in the south and southwest and I was raised in one. BTW they hate being called a denomination. In between are the Churches of Christ/Christian churches.

It gets very confusing.

 

[Radical]

And yet, no one seriously questioned the content of the Protoevangelium regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

…and as I said, Jerome, Aquinas and a Pope or two dismissed it even though they were supporters of the PPV…a source that even supporters can’t endorse is what you must trace your belief back to…kinda sad.

Or are you aware of some ancient document contradicting the Protoevangelium or taking issue with this teaching? By all means, let’s see it.

well you know that Helvidius and others would have rejected it and we know their works were either destroyed intentionally or by time…so a lack of works dismissing the Protoevangelium is kinda expected (unless the dismissals are by
Jerome, Aquinas and a Pope or two)

Otherwise, the plain fact of the matter is that the early Church accepted the PPV as fact (because eyewitness accounts handed down from one generation to the next said that it was), …

the Protoevangelium was written (fabricated) by someone who wasn’t familiar with Jewish customs…so the author(s) was either making it up or working off error-ridden tradition…neither of which would have been necessary if good eye-witness accounts actually existed. Further, Tertullian had a great respect for tradition and wouldn’t have knowingly contradicted an established tradition of Mary’s PPV or of Jesus being an only son (for someone other than the Father)…you claim that eye-witness accounts existed (b/c you desperately need to believe that such was the case)…otherwise you have an unsupported (scripturally and historically claim)…kinda sad

…but you have offered nothing in the way of evidence that disproves (or even seriously call into question) the ancient teaching that Mary remained ever-virgin.

it seems to me that you must believe that the PPV is true, otherwise you would have to face the realization that your Church teaches error. I suspect that your can’t look at the issue from any sort of neutral perspective and ask, “What actually happened?”…and as such, I doubt that any evidence would ever meet the standard that you would require.

 

[Radical]

So, you’re quoting Jerome who cites “Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men…[who] held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom.”?

If all of these men held that Mary remained ever-virgin, how is this helping your agurment?

Jerome made the claim of the PVofMary being supported by the earliest church fathers. I have demonstrated, from the named sources that we can check, that Jerome’s claim was false…either b/c he was ill-informed or b/c he wasn’t above making false claims to support his case

 

[jrtrent]

[This was already covered, to some extent, in post #16, but here’s something else I came across years ago (though, several computer upgrades later, I have lost track of the original link):

The information in post #16 and in yours seems to assume too limited a number of persons with the same name. Looking at the Holman Bible Dictionary online, you can see references to 3 men named James, 3 named Joses, 7 named Judas, and 9 named Simon. And his numbers may be conservative as one study Bible I have mentions 4 different men named James and 8 named Judas. Also, both you and post #16 state that there are only two apostles named James, and while that’s true for the original 12, there were an additional 12 apostles, one of whom was James, the Lord’s brother (according to Herbert Lockyer’s All the Apostles of the Bible).
[/quote]

 

[jrtrent]

Isn’t it curious that the scriptures always refer to these guys as “brothers of Jesus” but never as “sons of Mary”?

Ever stopped to consider why that might be?

I have to say that this question never once entered my mind before your bringing it up. Maybe it’s simply because Jesus is more prominent than Mary.

 

[Erich]

Maybe it’s simply because Jesus is more prominent than Mary.

There are only four named “brothers of Jesus” in all of Scripture. None are sons of Mary and Joseph.

 

[SteveVH]

I am just wondering why the Church of Christ has been singled out. Most Protestant denominations believe that Mary had other children.