Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Randy_Carson]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Righteous Man

Matthew 1:19
19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Two interpretations attempt to explain why Joseph decided to separate from Mary. They give opposite answers to the question: Who did Joseph think was the unworthy partner in the betrothal?

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

+++

Would Joseph choose to have normal sexual relations with Mary after she had been impregnated by God? Would you?

In our modern society, it is a rare bride or groom who enters the bridal chamber a virgin. We accept this as normal. But in some cultures and in ages past, virginity and the rights of one who had previously had sex with a virgin were held in higher regard.

And yet, some will argue, how difficult it would have been for a young man to be stripped of his sex life in this way…it goes against all (modern) understanding of sex within marriage.

Precisely. Which is why Joseph was chosen to be “husband-protector” of Mary rather than her husband in the traditional sense. As the Protoevangelium records, Joseph was much older than Mary and had children from his previous marriage. He knew that his role was not to have sex and children with Mary but to protect and honor her vow of perpetual virginity. It was for this reason that God chose him to be the earthly father of Jesus.

Joseph, too, was highly favored by God.

 

[Bballer32]

I don’t see why we are still arguing over this.

i still call my friends my “brothers” and in Mass we say “…and to you my BROTHERS and SISTERS…”

Don’t you think that if Christ did have a biological brother or sister that they might have been noted by the Gospel writers. I’m pretty sure they would have been.

And if Joseph did have kids before he met Mary than they still wouldn’t be his biological brothers and sisters. The Holy Spirit never came upon Mary again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t see why we are still arguing over this.

Because the implications are huge for non-Catholics.

While the PPV of Mary is a ho-hum fact for most Catholics, it is a flashpoint for Protestants who must reject this distinctly Catholic doctrine or face the unthinkable: if the Catholic Church is right on this issue, what else has it gotten right?

 

[Bballer32]

what else has it gotten right?

 

[jrtrent]

Because the implications are huge for non-Catholics.

And perhaps even bigger for Catholics. As noted previously in the thread, many prominent and early Protestants have also held to the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but to not hold that position is not necessarily heretical nor does it call into question the truthfulness of the teachings of those churches. But if the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue, what else has it gotten wrong, and what does that say for its teaching authority?

 

[Patavium]

And perhaps even bigger for Catholics. As noted previously in the thread, many prominent and early Protestants have also held to the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but to not hold that position is not necessarily heretical nor does it call into question the truthfulness of the teachings of those churches. But if the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue, what else has it gotten wrong, and what does that say for its teaching authority?

Is there an early document denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? I am talking before the reformation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And perhaps even bigger for Catholics. As noted previously in the thread, many prominent and early Protestants have also held to the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but to not hold that position is not necessarily heretical nor does it call into question the truthfulness of the teachings of those churches. But if the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue, what else has it gotten wrong, and what does that say for its teaching authority?

Of course. It cuts both ways.

So, PROVE to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary had sex with Joseph and had other children besides Jesus, and I will leave the Catholic Church.

I’ll wait. :compcoff:

In the meantime, the central issue for you is easier…if Jesus Himself promised to build the Church and to sustain it by sending the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, could that Church possibly fall into Apostasy?

:nope:

Mormonism is built on a flawed premise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sheesh.

jrtrent, I just figured out that you are no longer Mormon. That’s happy news, and please ignore my previous post.

Might I suggest a small change in your Relgion field? Try this:

Mormon > Lutheran > Anglican

The arrows suggest your progression better than the commas.

Cheers!

 

[JonNC]

Because the implications are huge for non-Catholics.

While the PPV of Mary is a ho-hum fact for most Catholics, it is a flashpoint for Protestants who must reject this distinctly Catholic doctrine or face the unthinkable: if the Catholic Church is right on this issue, what else has it gotten right?

Lots of stuff.

Jon

 

[adrift]

How does this exchange indicate the relative ages of Jesus and his brothers?

in Eastern societies, it would have been unacceptable for brothers to behave this way to the eldest brother. It would have been considered disrespectful. As would it be for a younger brother to advise an older brother as we see in John 7:3–4.

Add this to the facts already presented as well as that Jesus is refereed to as “the” son of Mary not "a’ son.

We also have Mary’s words

How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

1. She was betrothed which was the first part of marriage. Joseph and her were in the first part of marriage.
2. Mary knew where babies came from.
3. She didn’t Say Yahoo Joseph and I are going to have a baby.
4. Her statement wasn’t Joseph hasn’t come to get me yet but a more generalized statement I know not “man”.

It is hard to maintain that Jesus has any natural siblings.

 

[Radical]

Because in that culture, younger siblings would not presume to take authority over the eldest. This is lost in our modern society, but it was a big deal then and even now in Asian cultures.

so, if the eldest brother was out of his mind, the culture had no mechanism by which the eldest brother could be taken into custody (by the family, even with the assistance of a parent)?..and your authority for making that claim would be?

 

[adrift]

well, she was betrothed and the NT bothers to make it clear that she remained a virgin until Christ was born…the universal expectation in that culture would be for a pregnant woman to be a non-virgin…hence the NT clarification. The universal expectation in that culture would be for betrothed woman to have sex with her husband…hence the significance of the absence of any NT claim to the contrary.

.

Wow you almost had it. But I will help you with it.
The universal expectation in that culture would be for betrothed woman to have sex with her husband…hence the Nt clarification that she did not.

 

[Radical]

For the benefit of Catholics following this thread:

Mary was outside with some of Jesus’ cousins who came to take him home because they were concerned about him and the family reputation.

The Aramaic language contained no word for cousins, so the author was prone to use the words “brothers” or “sisters” for these kinsfolk.

so your theory is that, although the NT authors did not write in Aramaic, and although they knew that the “brethren” were really cousins, they avoided the word for “cousin” in the language that they were using b/c they felt a need to honour the limitations of Aramaic? Brilliant

 

[Radical]

Where were His brothers when their Mother was standing at the foot of the cross?

good question…now I can’t imagine that you think that the disciples, upon witnessing the arrest of Jesus, were able to phone Christ’s brothers and inform them of event…nor would you believe that the brethren were able to hop in a car and drive to Jerusalem to attend at the trial. I expect that we can agree that someone would have had to walk to where the brethern were and then the brethern would have had to walk to where the trial and crucifixion took place…and this would have only been possible if the brethren were in Jerusalem (or its immediate vicinity) at the time. Therefore, I take it that your question stems from some knowledge that the brethren were notified of the arrest/trial/crucifixion and were close at hand…a source for such knowledge please.

Remember the culture of the time…It would not have happened.

remember the methods of relaying news and travel for that culture at that time…it may have been unavoidable.

 

[Porknpie]

so your theory is that, although the NT authors did not write in Aramaic, and although they knew that the “brethren” were really cousins, they avoided the word for “cousin” in the language that they were using b/c they felt a need to honour the limitations of Aramaic? Brilliant

Radical, by your same logic, you believe Jesus had 120 brothers…120 sisters given science and thus 240 brothers and sisters? “Brilliant”.

 

[adrift]

good question…now I can’t imagine that you think that the disciples, upon witnessing the arrest of Jesus, were able to phone Christ’s brothers and inform them of event…nor would you believe that the brethren were able to hop in a car and drive to Jerusalem to attend at the trial. I expect that we can agree that someone would have had to walk to where the brethern were and then the brethern would have had to walk to where the trial and crucifixion took place…and this would have only been possible if the brethren were in Jerusalem (or its immediate vicinity) at the time. Therefore, I take it that your question stems from some knowledge that the brethren were notified of the arrest/trial/crucifixion and were close at hand…a source for such knowledge please.

remember the methods of relaying news and travel for that culture at that time…it may have been unavoidable.

Let me understand you. Are you saying that Mary was all by herself in Jerusalem?

 

[Randy_Carson]

so your theory is that, although the NT authors did not write in Aramaic, and although they knew that the “brethren” were really cousins, they avoided the word for “cousin” in the language that they were using b/c they felt a need to honour the limitations of Aramaic? Brilliant

This has been covered previously, but I’ll go through it again since you asked.

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

Here’s another example:

Lot, the “Brother” of Abram

Genesis 12:5
He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.

Genesis 13:8
So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.

Genesis 14:12
They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Four Positive Proofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Proof #1 - The Vow of Perpetual Virginity

First, at the annunciation, the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.

So, Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?

Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations. Joseph agreed to marry Mary as her guardian - not as her husband - because he was much older and a widower. See Proof #3 below.

Proof #2 - The Absence of Younger Siblings in Childhood Scenes

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Proof #3 - The Presence of Older Siblings by Joseph’s First Marriage

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Proof #4 - Jesus Entrusts Mary to John

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her

 

[Radical]

Why did you leave out this

thanks for posting it…I should have included that bit. I believe that it shows some more of Jerome’s lack of understanding…Tertullian was not outside of the church. The church in Carthage included Montanists. Tertullian did not write against the church…he was part of it. He wrote against what he perceived as the abuses and slackness within the church. Tertullian’s works that contradict the PVofM are from before and after his adoption of a Montanist point of view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

if a credible source taught the PVof M then I would easily accept it…

Here is an ecumenical statement on the subject:

Mary in the New Testament [Raymond Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & John Reumann (eds.), *Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. New York – Mahwah (Paulist Press) 1978] has been described as one of the first and best ecumenical (Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic) surveys of the evidence for beliefs concerning Mary. Foremost scholars analyze what can and cannot be surmised from the text, how later traditions evolved, and whether there is room for dialogue and consensus.

Concerning the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament, the co-authors reach these conclusions:
“The term *adelphos, *which is used in Mark 6:3, would normally denote a blood brother, ‘son of the same mother,’ *frater germanus. *It is well known that in the NT *adelphos *at times denotes other relationships: e.g. ‘co-religionist’ (Rom 9:3, where it is in the plural, and further specified as referring to kinsmen *[syngeneis] *according to the flesh); ‘neighbor’ (Matt 5:22-24)- but these instances do not help with the problem at hand, for here Jesus’ mother and sisters are mentioned also. More pertinent would be the use of *adelphos *for step-brother in Mark 6:17-18. In the Greek *adelphos *is sometimes used in the broad sense of ‘kinsmen, relative’ e.g., in the LXX of Gen 29:12, Jacob tells Rebekah ‘that he is her father’s *adelphos *(Kinsman)’ also Gen 24:48. The Greek usage here obviously reflects the underlying Hebrew in which ‘ah means both (blood) brother and ’ kinsman.’ The same range of meaning seems to be attested for Aramaic. (Brown et al, *Mary in the New Testament, *65-66.)
“We did agree on these points: 1) The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the NT. 2) Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the ‘brothers’ (and 'sisters) to Jesus. 3) Once that attention has been focused, **it cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary. 4) The solution favored by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later church insights. (ibid, 72.)