Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[cheezey]

It was a scolding for an inaccurate quote. Why would there be a smiley? A frown would be more accurate. Are you unaware that you quoted me than added to my quote guess…

No. I am aware that I posted by way of quoting someone and sending it off before writing my own words. It was late, I was tired, dealing with insomnia and anxiety and made an oopsy…

 

[cheezey]

“Why would there be a smiley? A frown would be more accurate.”

a frowning smiley scratching its head, as if confused, then. The word ‘smiley’ can be used in a a couple of different ways. Like the word ‘Brother’ for cousin or close relative, say…

 

[HelenRose]

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.

If Mary had other sons and daughters she would have not been with Jesus. Christ knew what was going to happen. Any good son would have seen to it that his mother was sent to a safe place before the events took place. She would not have been with him if she had had any other place to be.

 

[Radical]

If Mary had other sons and daughters she would have not been with Jesus.

says who?

Christ knew what was going to happen.

agreed

Any good son would have seen to it that his mother was sent to a safe place before the events took place.

you just said that Christ knew what was going to happen…that would include whether Mary would be harmed if she was with him and not her other children…

She would not have been with him if she had had any other place to be.

are you kidding me? as a parent I would want to be with endangered child and not my safe children

 

[Radical]

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.)
jrtrent had already posted their 4 point conclusion on this thread and I had responded back at post 72 with:

note how the authors emphasis the “without doubt”…it means that, in the opinion of those scholars, the New Testament identified them with less than absolute clarity as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary. (For example at pp 86-87 they acknowledge that the “not until” verse when coupled with what is said in chapters 12 & 13 creates the likelihood that Matthew believed that Mary and Joseph had other kids together)…it wasn’t expressly said, but it sure is the likely understanding

 

[cheezey]

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

Once I realized how much older Joseph had to have been, I thought of stepbrothers.
Once I realized “Hey why would Jesus entrust Mary to John if there were other biological ties.?” I thought, no siblings.

Both make sense and support what I have come to know. BUT!!! Historically, can you tell me why stepbrothers would not have taken care of Mary, after her only Son’s death? What would have been the standard in that day?

Thanks.

 

[Radical]

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

yes…a number. What seems to be often missed by Catholics when considering the PVof M is that it has three pieces to it:

1. Ante partum
2. In partu, and
3. post partum

Fail to have any one of those three and the PVofM is lost. Terullian denied #2 and #3. Origen likely denied #2. The Helvidians and the Antidicomarianites denied #3. Basil of Caesarea implied that the view that Mary had more children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines p. 495).

Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius wrote:
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.
(Church History by Eusebius, 3:20.1). At 4:22.4 Hegesippus is quoted as saying:
The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.
…and so the weak “he said brother when he meant cousin b/c the language he wasn’t using didn’t have a word for cousin” argument can’t even be raised in this case, because the author uses the word for cousin, when he meant cousin.

 

[swplan76]

Why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Important
From catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

OBJECTOR: …Does it really matter if Mary had other children?

CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2).

From what I’ve read, the Bible tells us very little about Mary (…I come from a Protestant background, but am in the process of becoming Catholic - so I must apologize for anything I may have missed from books of the Bible that have been omitted in the Protestant Bible). She accepts God’s calling to her to be the mother of the son of God - she sings a song of worship and thanksgiving. She asks Jesus to make wine out of water. She thinks he is crazy at one point and sends some relatives to stop Jesus from what he is doing (which could mean that she really was out of the loop for some time while he was in his full blown ministry). She is at the foot of the cross when Jesus dies.

If there is more to know, that is directly about Mary, please fill me in! Thanks.

I guess another thing that strikes me as odd about the whole PV thing is that it stands outside of the pattern of characters we see in the Bible. Jesus calls mostly a bunch of rejects to join him. Jesus himself was a reject. Nearly all the characters in the Bible were flawed and confused and full of misconceptions about who God is. It makes a lot of sense to me that Mary would be one of us. God/Jesus calls people who don’t have it all together, people who make mistakes. The whole point of calling Mary, an unmarried teenager from Nazareth and then leading her to give birth in a stable seems to be about making a statement - God can make a lot out of nothing. Jesus’ followers don’t suddenly become wise and perfect after spending all their time with him - they remain misfits who often prove that they just don’t get it. God doesn’t transform anyone on the spot and make them perfect in the Bible that I can see. They get to remain human with human needs and human relationships. Keeping her a virgin doesn’t seem to actually do anything - either way, what is accomplished? The idea that her devotion stayed with God and didn’t offer anything to Joseph is a bit problematic for me… Joseph was her husband - God made that happen - wasn’t that important? Why did Joseph get shut out? Marriage is a sacrament…

Now, I have to say that what I’ve said is the protestant background speaking - I am in the midst of reforming and I have a lot to learn - any and all help is very welcome.

The only thing that makes sense to me in this is that it comes from the church fathers - this part of the story is not in scripture, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true - reliable hands may have passed it down. I would just like to know how and what it is that we know.

 

[jrtrent]

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:

Sorry you’ve waited so long only to be disappointed–I cannot provide proof for you. I see that in a later post you quoted the same article I had noted earlier. The conclusion they reached is, I think, as far as the Biblical record let’s us say. I believe the natural sense of the scriptures is that Jesus had siblings who were children of Mary and Joseph, but I acknowledge that that cannot be established “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

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?

I don’t know about “apostasy,” but the early church frequently fell into error, which occasioned the writing of some of the new testament books. I don’t believe the church exists in purity in any of its current forms, but I do believe the Christian faith exists, and that faithful followers of Christ can be found in many church bodies.

Edit: Thanks for the tip about changing the wording of my religious affiliation. Yours is a good idea, but I’ll think about it a bit more before changing to that or some other description. You’re not the first to assume that I’m currently a Mormon.

 

[HelenRose]

says who?

agreed

you just said that Christ knew what was going to happen…that would include whether Mary would be harmed if she was with him and not her other children…

are you kidding me? as a parent I would want to be with endangered child and not my safe children

I don’t don’t buy that. Perhaps your family works in a different ways than mine. But that whole scenario makes no sense to me. Her other sons would have had to been totally blind to not see the coming of her suffering and pain, to not see what was going to happen to her and to their brother. And there is no reason to suppose that they had not also come to Jerusalem. Even given your scenario, Christ would not have said, “Behold your Mother.” to John. He would have said, “See to it that she get back to my brothers.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

jrtrent had already posted their 4 point conclusion on this thread and I had responded back at post 72 with:

note how the authors emphasis the “without doubt”…it means that, in the opinion of those scholars, the New Testament identified them with less than absolute clarity as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary. (For example at pp 86-87 they acknowledge that the “not until” verse when coupled with what is said in chapters 12 & 13 creates the likelihood that Matthew believed that Mary and Joseph had other kids together)…it wasn’t expressly said, but it sure is the likely understanding

All this having been said, these scholars are not helping your position at all.

They reach the conclusion that the NT does NOT specify that Mary had other children.

Your position is busted and Protestant scholars know it; there is NOTHING in Sacred Scripture that you can point to as definitive proof that Mary did not remain ever virgin.

NOTHING.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once I realized how much older Joseph had to have been, I thought of stepbrothers.
Once I realized “Hey why would Jesus entrust Mary to John if there were other biological ties.?” I thought, no siblings.

Both make sense and support what I have come to know. BUT!!! Historically, can you tell me why stepbrothers would not have taken care of Mary, after her only Son’s death? What would have been the standard in that day?

Thanks.

Not sure about the standard of the day, but Joseph agreed to take care of Mary because she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity. The next thing you know, ol’ Dad is headed off to Egypt for a few years with this crazy girl under some cloud of suspicion. That probably didn’t help the family reputation any.

When they finally come back to Israel, he and his “bride” go to live in Nazareth of all places…can anything good come from there? Finally, she never had any other kids, and the two of them constantly made a big deal out of the youngest member of the family like he was special or something. Remember how Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him because he was Jacob’s favorite? The older brothers were jealous.

So, yeah, I can see Joseph’s older step-brothers keeping their distance from the kid that everyone was whispering about…

 

[Radical]

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 authors of the NT wrote in Greek and would have spoken that language as well….Luke, one of the key authors for this topic, wasn’t a Hebrew. As such, the brethren of Jesus, the sons and the daughters of Mary would have been discussed in Greek (before the oral tradition was reduced to writing) and in those discussions the word for “cousin” would have been available to use if cousins were actually involved.

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.

This claim wouldn’t apply to Luke and is proven to be unimportant in that Paul wrote the following:

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas… (Col 4:10)

I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. (Gal 1:19)

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ? (1 Cor 9:5)

….notice how, when Paul meant “cousin” he used the word for cousin…he wasn’t adhering to some Hebrew/Aramaic practice. It follows then, that when he meant “brother”, he used “brother”

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did.

the translators for the Septuagint were going from written Hebrew to Greek (full stop). In the Hebrew OT, “cousin” would have always shown up as “brother” (except when described as son of my uncle etc). The NT authors were working from oral traditions (probably circulated in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic)and likely some earlier works (written in Greek and Hebrew)…with that variety of sources, the idea of “cousin” wouldn’t have been always conveyed as “brother”…in relaying the oral tradition, questions could be asked, discussions with the speaker could be had, further explanations could be offered and so, if “cousins” were involved the Greek word for “cousin” would have come into use… You are comparing apples to oranges.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. … When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

well let’s give your theory a test drive. You want us to believe that the authors of the NT utilized the “brother(s)” when they meant “cousin(s)” but:

1. That ignores the fact that (as shown above) when Paul meant “cousin” he used the word for cousin…he wasn’t adhering to some Hebrew/Aramaic practice.
2. 5 authors mention the brothers of Jesus…you could say that the authors of the synoptic gospels are working off of each other (and would therefore have a greater likelihood to do the same thing), but Paul and the author of the gospel of John are working independently of them and each other…it stretches credulity that all would decide to do the same thing (except we know that Paul didn’t do it)
3. The brothers of Jesus are mentioned between 5 and 10 times by a variety of authors, who referenced a variety of sources (including non-Aramaic and non-Hebrew) in addressing both Greek speaking and Hebrew speaking audiences….it is unlikely, in those circumstances, they would all decide to use “brother” for “cousin” and would do so 100% of the time.
4. Context, context, context. The brothers are mentioned in context with Jesus’s mother…which makes better sense with them being members of his immediate family vs. being his cousins.

 

[Radical]

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?

the scholars who wrote Mary in the New Testament don’t think that this is what the “How can this be?” indicates…they note:

a) The “how” question is a standard literary device

b) It follows the annunciation (re birth of a son) pattern one sees for Zechariah, Moses, Abraham, Samson’s parents and Gideon.

c) The idea that a Galilean girl entered into a marriage with the intention of remaining a virgin is out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of that time.

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 as a (non-newborn) child is mentioned only once…in an episode that gives a detail of Christ’s self-realization (and his parents’ lack of understanding). There is no purpose served in mentioning another child of Mary…though it would most certainly be more likely for her to lose a child if the child was one of a number, than if the child was an only child.

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.

not really….Jesus is called Mary’s son only once…not much of a contrast. Only once (when Jesus is the central figure…the guy it is all about) vs. not at all (for his brothers who are dealt with in a mere dozen or so verses).

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.

your use of “seldom” betrays your proof… Although it might be a thing that is seldom done, there is simply no reason to think that the younger brothers would have to absolutely adhere to the “respect your older brother rule” when the older brother is thought to be out of his mind and a disgrace to the family.

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

well, it looks like his brothers were unbelievers until after the resurrection…and weren’t at the cross. We know that his brother James died early and that John is believed to have lived to a ripe old age….perhaps, given what would happen to the candidates (for the job of looking after Mary) the beloved disciple was the best choice by far….and I would expect Jesus to make the best choice and not follow meaningless customs.

 

[Randy_Carson]

….the authors of the NT wrote in Greek and would have spoken that language as well….Luke, one of the key authors for this topic, wasn’t a Hebrew. As such, the brethren of Jesus, the sons and the daughters of Mary would have been discussed in Greek (before the oral tradition was reduced to writing) and in those discussions the word for “cousin” would have been available to use if cousins were actually involved.

It’s pretty obvious you haven’t put much thought into this because the articles posted for your review explain this.

The authors were Jews and they were steeped in the patterns of thought that they grew up with. Consequently, although they wrote in Greek, they used the same “euphemisms” or manners of expressing themselves that they had used all their lives. They were accustomed to thinking of and to calling a kinsman a “brother”, and this would have carried over into their writing…even when it was done in Greek.

This claim wouldn’t apply to Luke and is proven to be unimportant in that Paul wrote the following:

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas… (Col 4:10)

I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. (Gal 1:19)

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ? (1 Cor 9:5)

….notice how, when Paul meant “cousin” he used the word for cousin…he wasn’t adhering to some Hebrew/Aramaic practice. It follows then, that when he meant “brother”, he used “brother” the translators for the Septuagint were going from written Hebrew to Greek (full stop). In the Hebrew OT, “cousin” would have always shown up as “brother” (except when described as son of my uncle etc). The NT authors were working from oral traditions (probably circulated in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic)and likely some earlier works (written in Greek and Hebrew)…with that variety of sources, the idea of “cousin” wouldn’t have been always conveyed as “brother”…in relaying the oral tradition, questions could be asked, discussions with the speaker could be had, further explanations could be offered and so, if “cousins” were involved the Greek word for “cousin” would have come into use… You are comparing apples to oranges.
well let’s give your theory a test drive. You what us to believe that the authors of the NT utilized the “brother(s)” when they meant “cousin(s)” but:

1. That ignores the fact that (as shown above) when Paul meant “cousin” he used the word for cousin…he wasn’t adhering to some Hebrew/Aramaic practice.

1. 5 authors mention the brothers of Jesus…you could say that the authors of the synoptic gospels are working off of each other (and would therefore have a greater likelihood to do the same thing), but Paul and the author of the gospel of John are working independently of them and each other…it stretches credulity that all would decide to do the same thing (except we know that Paul didn’t do it)

1. The brothers of Jesus are mentioned between 5 and 10 times by a variety of authors, who referenced a variety of sources (including non-Aramaic and non-Hebrew) in addressing both Greek speaking and Hebrew speaking audiences….it is unlikely, in those circumstances, they would all decide to use “brother” for “cousin” and would do so 100% of the time.

1. Context, context, context. The brothers are mentioned in context with Jesus’s mother…which makes better sense with them being members of his immediate family vs. being his cousins.

Or step-brothers from Joseph’s previous marriage. Given that Joseph had died previously, I’m not surprised to find Mary in the company of male kinsmen who would have taken responsibility for caring for her when she traveled to see Jesus when he was teaching away from home. She certainly wouldn’t have made the journey alone.

As for Paul and Luke, they were Roman citizens and were fluent in Greek. So, their ability to use the Greek language more capably is understandable. But perhaps you know more about all this than the Greek scholars quoted previously?

 

[Randy_Carson]

the scholars who wrote Mary in the New Testament don’t think that this is what the “How can this be?” indicates…they note:

a) The “how” question is a standard literary device

b) It follows the annunciation (re birth of a son) pattern one sees for Zechariah, Moses, Abraham, Samson’s parents and Gideon.

c) The idea that a Galilean girl entered into a marriage with the intention of remaining a virgin is out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of that time.

It was unusual, but not unknown and it would make sense if Mary had taken a vow that she would need a “protector” who “married” her but did not have sex with her.

Is it possible that Mary was dedicated to God by her mother in the same way that Samuel was dedicated to God by Hannah as a perpetual Nazirite? And could it be that Mary’s own prayer was patterned after that of Hannah precisely because she had studied the story of Hannah and Samuel in light of her own perpetual dedication to God?

Oh, and the idea that God would become a man and die on a cross was “out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of the time”, also.

Jesus as a (non-newborn) child is mentioned only once…in an episode that gives a detail of Christ’s self-realization (and his parents’ lack of understanding). There is no purpose served in mentioning another child of Mary…though it would most certainly be more likely for her to lose a child if the child was one of a number, than if the child was an only child.

No, the scriptures explain that they simply thought he was with other members of the traveling party. Consequently, there is no inference concerning a “number” of children that had Mary and Joseph distracted.

not really….Jesus is called Mary’s son only once…not much of a contrast. Only once (when Jesus is the central figure…the guy it is all about) vs. not at all (for his brothers who are dealt with in a mere dozen or so verses).

You mean, Mary really isn’t connected to Jesus as His mother other than the whole Annunciation thingie?

your use of “seldom” betrays your proof… Although it might be a thing that is seldom done, there is simply no reason to think that the younger brothers would have to absolutely adhere to the “respect your older brother rule” when the older brother is thought to be out of his mind and a disgrace to the family.

Cousins might have been concerned about the “disgrace”, also.

well, it looks like his brothers were unbelievers until after the resurrection…and weren’t at the cross. We know that his brother James died early and that John is believed to have lived to a ripe old age….perhaps, given what would happen to the candidates (for the job of looking after Mary) the beloved disciple was the best choice by far….and I would expect Jesus to make the best choice and not follow meaningless customs.

Right. These guys grew up under the same roof with Jesus and knew all about the stories of the Annunciation, the flight to Egypt, the finding in the Temple when Jesus was schooling the teachers of the law, etc. They just didn’t believe that he was the Son of God. Their mom did. Dad did. Aunt Elizabeth and Uncle Zechariah knew who he was, and Cousin John was out in the desert telling everyone about him. But no, they all thought Jesus was crazy.

I get it, Radical. I totally understand where you’re coming from.

The NT contains nothing that proves that Mary did not remain perpetually virgin. You’re arguing that Mary did have other children, and so, in the context of THIS thread, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

It’s not going well for you so far. :nope:

 

[Radical]

It’s pretty obvious you haven’t put much thought into this because the articles posted for your review explain this.

The authors were Jews and they were steeped in the patterns of thought that they grew up with. Consequently, although they wrote in Greek, they used the same “euphemisms” or manners of expressing themselves that they had used all their lives.

Luke wasn’t Jewish…most likely a gentile Christian. Paul didn’t follow your suggested rule and used “cousin” for “cousin”.

Or step-brothers from Joseph’s previous marriage.

make up your mind…commit to either cousins or step-brothers and don’t flip flop to the other option when your case for the first option proves weak or very problematic

 

[tabycat]

Luke wasn’t Jewish…most likely a gentile Christian. Paul didn’t follow your suggested rule and used “cousin” for “cousin”.

make up your mind…commit to either cousins or step-brothers and don’t flip flop to the other option when your case for the first option proves weak or very problematic

Most, if not all, of Luke’s sources were Jewish, and, when he was writting, Chirstianaty still had ties to Judism. :knight1:

 

[Radical]

It was unusual, but not unknown and it would make sense if Mary had taken a vow that she would need a “protector” who “married” her but did not have sex with her.

this is what you seem to need to try and make your case somewhat possible…but it just doesn’t line up with the culture and history…but, for argument sake let’s assume that the alleged unlikely vow was actually made. In that case, Mary would have planned to a) never have sex, b) never become pregnant and c) never be a mom. Since plans (b) and (c) were abondoned, why would we assume that plan (a) remained in place. Also, nothing about a vow enables her to remain a virgin in partu and so the alleged extremely unlikely and entirely implausible vow doesn’t help much…as you need ante partum, in partu and post partum

Oh, and the idea that God would become a man and die on a cross was “out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of the time”, also.

fortunately we don’t have to depend on a second century work of fiction and your ability to infer with regard to that critical idea.

Consequently, there is no inference concerning a “number” of children that had Mary and Joseph distracted.

well they didn’t do a good job keeping track of young Jesus…being distracted by 4 other sons and a daughter or two offers some explanation

You mean, Mary really isn’t connected to Jesus as His mother other than the whole Annunciation thingie?

no, I mean your proof relating to “son of Mary” is extremely weak

Cousins might have been concerned about the “disgrace”, also.

so it is back to cousins again?

Right. These guys grew up under the same roof with Jesus and knew all about the stories of the Annunciation, the flight to Egypt, the finding in the Temple when Jesus was schooling the teachers of the law, etc. They just didn’t believe that he was the Son of God. Their mom did.

she is included within the family that is trying to take custody of him…Mary isn’t portrayed as being without any issues in the NT

Dad did. Aunt Elizabeth and Uncle Zechariah knew who he was, and Cousin John was out in the desert telling everyone about him.

if you check the NT, you will see that John had doubts too…and Jesus said that there was none born of a woman who was greater than John…that is none, no one born of a woman…who was Mary’s mother again

But no, they all thought Jesus was crazy.

again Mary is included in that bunch…but tell me, if you wanted to go with the "stepsons option’, how is it that you believe that older stepbrothers wouldn’t have been able to notice Christ’s divinity, but that younger blood-brothers would have had to notice Christ’s divinity?..and well you are at explaining that culture and how they referred to kin as brothers, why not explain how all the “cousins” that are mentioned end up being non-believers…thinking that Jesus is out of his mind. Given that they spent so much time together, shouldn’t at least one of them figured out the divinity thing (that is, assuming that younger blood brothers would have had to figure that out).

I get it, Radical. I totally understand where you’re coming from.

I doubt that

The NT contains nothing that proves that Mary did not remain perpetually virgin. You’re arguing that Mary did have other children, and so, in the context of THIS thread, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

so you are now the determiner of burdens?

It’s not going well for you so far.

finally you are right…it isn’t going well, it is going very well for me.

 

[cheezey]

how does this affect our love of Christ?