Did Jesus have brothers? Article dealing with the question of whether Mary was always "the Virgin Mary."

[RobynP]

My theological sensibilities don’t matter because I am not declaring a de fide doctrine based on a “its possible Matthew meant this even though all the evidence suggests otherwise” speculation.

Aww come on Hodos, you know that’s not what the doctrine is based on. We just disagree that the text from Matthew disproves the doctrine like you think it does. Of course it’s not a positive proof for the doctrine.

But what do you think of Matthew 27:56? Is the Mother of James and Joseph also the mother of Jesus, and Matthew just decided to not call her by that more recognizable title for whatever reason? Or is he referring to a different woman? If he is, doesn’t that support the idea that Matthew isn’t talking about uterine brothers when he uses the word adelphos?

(If you’ve already answered this question, my bad. I haven’t read all 100-plus posts here. Just curious what you think because for me this is a pretty strong indication that Matthew wasn’t using adelphos in the way you say he is.)

 

[Hodos]

Aww come on Hodos, you know that’s not what the doctrine is based on.

No, I don’t know that. Based on the speculative nature of all of the responses given here, that is precisely what it is based on. There is a denial in each of the responses above to deny the natural meaning of the words, but not only the words, but to ignore the context given by the authors, which state that Mary and Joseph were already engaged when the angelic proclamation of the incarnation occurred, that Joseph was told to remain with his wife, that Joseph did not know his wife until she had conceived her son, that Jesus refers to siblings in the same context as referring to his mother (note that this is rightfully seen as a literal meaning of adelphos, but the brother and sister reference is not), and that Jesus used the paradox of his actual mother and brothers and sisters to highlight the adoption of those who obey the will of the father.

Again, the reading away from the natural reading provided by Matthew is pure speculation. The only arguments put forward in defense of this thus far offer no positive confirmation of the perpetual virginity, they only try to change the clear meaning of the text to say its possible. That is the best that can be attempted to be offered here. That is pretty slim ground for a de fide dogma of the Church.

And again, with regard to the claim that this was the universal teaching of the Church, no it wasn’t. I submit the fact that Jerome had to debate it with Helvitius in the 4th-5th Century, and St. Basel wrote that this wasn’t universally held or required to believed as well. Again, the issue here was the declaration of this idea as de fide dogma with the penalty of anathema for rejecting it.

 

[FranciscoN2001]

My deacon actually told me a few nights ago that Ezekiel 44:2 was not related to Mary.
Yes, context is important. Using this without context is like using Matthew 15:24 without context

 

[BlueMaxx]

If Jesus had brothers, he would have never given Mary away to John as he was dying on the cross. He would have given Mary to one of his brothers, as was tradition back then.

It would have been unthinkable for Jesus to have His mother stay with John instead.

That is interesting, never thought about it that way…

 

[BartholomewB]

and St. Basel wrote that this wasn’t universally held or required to believed as well.

This is the first time I’ve heard St. Basil’s name mentioned in the context of this debate. I just looked at the entry in the old Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent website, but as far as I can see it doesn’t mention this question. I’d be interested to see what he says. Do you have a reference or a link?

Thanks.

http://newadvent.com/cathen/02330b.htm

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

St. Basel wrote that this wasn’t universally held or required to believed as well.

This is a misrepresentation and a partial truth.

I’ll attempt to get back here later today and expound on why. Right now I can’t.

We will see . . . The manufactured St. Basil objection, when looked at ALL that he said, and in context . . . we will actually see strong AFFIRMATION of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary from St. Basil.

 

[Cathoholic]

OK. I found it where I already dealt with the St. Basil “objection”.

All that St. Basil is saying is that there is “OPINION” that Mary’s virginity after Jesus’s birth . . . . was not necessary regarding Christ’s INCARNATION.

Not that the Blessed Virgin Mary had carnal relations.

That’s all. Not that Mary DID throw away her Virginity.

(This second part of the above “objection” [regarding Christ’s Incarnation] is often omitted when people bring up the St. Basil “objection” as well as the fact that St. Basil is talking about speculative OPINION, not doctrine.

The other fact that is almost universally NOT presented by the St. Basil (mis)users, is that St. Basil calls such people who deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as being . . . NOT friends of Christ (that’d be enemies and ignorant people who do NOT KNOW CHRIST)!

Here is the first oft-misused quote

ST. BASIL THE GREAT “[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ] . . . . is not against the faith; for virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation. On the other hand, her subsequent virginity was not essential to the mystery of the Incarnation .” (Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ).

Here is the second part of the SAME St. Basil writing that you will never hear from the St. Basil (mis)users from . . . (you know what I am going to say) . . . From the VERY SAME DOCUMENT from St. Basil no less!

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) ever ceased to be a Virgin (παρθένος) ."
—Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Holy Hierarch)
[Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ 5] "

So if St. Basil thinks people who deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity are NOT friends of Christ what could they possibly be?

“Enemies” of Christ (admittedly they may also be people who are confused about Christ who are merely under catechized too). But they are "NOT friends" of Christ.

Incidentally, these same people who deny Mary as a Perpetual Virgin, frequently deny Mary as “Mother of God” too.

 

[Hodos]

“For ‘He did not know her’ - it says - ‘until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn.’ But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affect the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ [that is the faithful] do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient.”

In other words, while Basil may agree with the perpetual virginity, he says there is no impact to doctrine and demonstrates that there is ample scriptural evidence to support the opposite claim. If, as you suppose, the perpetual virginity was the constant, unanimous teaching of the Church, then why is Basil addressing this? The answer is that there was disagreement on this topic. So the charge that this is a Reformation based disagreement is false to begin with.

 

[BartholomewB]

If, as you suppose, the perpetual virginity was the constant, unanimous teaching of the Church, then why is Basil addressing this?

Thank you, @Hodos. So it’s possible, then, that the so-called “Helvidian view” may in fact predate Helvidius, though Basil and Helvidius were evidently both active at around the same time, during the pontificate of Damasus I (366-384). I’ve just been looking at Wikipedia, where it says that Basil was bishop of Caesarea from 370 until his death in 379.

I think it was in one of Richard Bauckham’s books that I saw an argument that strikes me as pretty convincing. I don’t recall his exact words, but from memory it goes something like this. The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity has been traced back to a very early date. If she had given birth to other children after Jesus, people would have known about it. How, then, in those circumstances, would it have been possible for that belief to gain acceptance, if the evidence were so readily to hand making it demonstrably untrue?

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t know that.

Then you need to do your research.

Based on the speculative nature of all of the responses given here, that is precisely what it is based on.

The responses here have been in reply to the tenor and direction of your questions. That’s why they haven’t addressed the Church’s reasoning. But, if you tool around the site, I’m sure you’ll find an explanation of the term ‘brethren of the Lord’.

Again, the reading away from the natural reading provided by Matthew is pure speculation.

That depends on whether one agrees that the strict ‘uterine’ reading is the “natural reading.” The Scriptural references that show other readings diminish your claim that it is.

The only arguments put forward in defense of this thus far offer no positive confirmation of the perpetual virginity, they only try to change the clear meaning of the text to say its possible.

You’re misreading the arguments, then. You’ve asserted that we must read it in the way that you read it. The arguments against your claim demonstrate that this is not true – it is possible to read it other ways.

What they’re doing is dismantling your argument, not proving theirs. And, with your argument destroyed… well, you have no grounds to stand on to dismiss the Catholic argument, now do you?

And again, with regard to the claim that this was the universal teaching of the Church, no it wasn’t.

It was. Let’s look at your ‘facts’:

I submit the fact that Jerome had to debate it with Helvitius in the 4th-5th Century

Helvidius’ problem was with the ascetical movement in the 4th century Church, which asserted that virginity was superior to marriage (and thus, argued that Christians should adopt virginity, or at least, admit that virginity trumped marriage). His work (which is not extant) is quoted by Jerome. He was responding to an essay that asserted that virginity was superior to marriage, and that Mary’s perpetual virginity proved that point. He argued against that point, and in doing so, also argued against Mary’s perpetual virginity. See Hunter’s essay Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome for more details.

In any case, one dissenter does not prove that there was not a doctrine. Here’s your counter-example: anecdotally, it’s claimed that half the Catholics in the U.S. do not follow the Church’s teaching against birth control. Would you use that factoid to demonstrate that the Church doesn’t teach against birth control? Of course not! Similarly here – you can’t use the witness of one, or ten, or one hundred dissenters to prove that a Church teaching doesn’t exist. That kind of anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

That would not have affect the teaching of our religion at all . . .

But it DOES affect the teaching.

Why?

Becuase the Scriptures do not teach one way or the other EXPLICITLY.

The Scriptures DO affirm the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary IMPLICITLY (which is just what you would expect with such a private delicate matter).

But Christianity has NEVER been a sola Scriptura religion. That was a late invention a few hundred years ago.

Sacred Oral Tradition HAS been more direct in asserting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As I said earlier. Guys like Cerinthus DENIED this doctrine because he knew that it cast aspersions on Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

The Pharisees went further asserting the Blessed Mother was less than chaste (setting Jesus off in the process).

Notice initially Jesus is pretty cool and affirms the Pharasees as descendents of Abraham in John 8.

JOHN 8:31-37a 31 Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham . . .

Jesus then IMPLIES they have the devil as their father because Jesus KNOWS they are plotting to murder Jesus.

JOHN 8:37-41 37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did.”

Now the Pharisees IMPLY something awful against the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They say to Jesus . . . “WEEEE were not born of fornication!”

What is the subtle but unmistakable implication here?

1/2

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2 . . .

What is the subtle but unmistakable implication here?

An attack on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And NOW look how Jesus responds!

Jesus now tells em outright "Your Father is THE DEVIL!"

WOW!

They set Jesus off on THAT assertion.

Let’s listen in.

JOHN 8:39-44 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did.”
They said to him,
“We were not born of fornication;
we have one Father, even God.”
42 Jesus said to them,
“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44
You are of your father the devil,
and your will is to do your father’s desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

This was one of the five blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary that so outrage our Lord Jesus (as revealed to Sr. Lucia but the ONE that I am discussing is right here in Scripture at least in part implicitly).

.

Here they are . . .

(1) Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.

(2) Blasphemies against Mother Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

(3) Blasphemies against her Divine Maternity and at the same time the refusal to recognize her as the Mother of all mankind

(4) Blasphemies of those who seek openly to foster in the hearts of children indifference or contempt and even hatred for this Immaculate Mother.

(5) The offenses of those who directly outrage Her in her holy images.

 

[Gorgias]

In other words, while Basil may agree with the perpetual virginity, he says there is no impact to doctrine

No. He says that it does not impact the doctrine of the Incarnation (by a virgin birth).

and demonstrates that there is ample scriptural evidence to support the opposite claim.

He does? Do you have a link to the homily (I don’t)? I’d like to see that “ample scriptural evidence”…

If, as you suppose, the perpetual virginity was the constant, unanimous teaching of the Church, then why is Basil addressing this? The answer is that there was disagreement on this topic.

No. The answer is that he’s saying, “look… even if folks still discuss what ‘brethren of the Lord’ means, that does not change the doctrine.”

 

[Hodos]

The responses here have been in reply to the tenor and direction of your questions. That’s why they haven’t addressed the Church’s reasoning. But, if you tool around the site, I’m sure you’ll find an explanation of the term ‘brethren of the Lord’.

I have read numerous articles on the subject, all of which involve a level of eisegesis that leads me to reject this doctrine. I am well educated on the subject. Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

all of which involve a level of eisegesis that leads me to reject this doctrine.

If the basis for your conclusion of ‘eisegesis’ is “adelphos must mean uterine brother”, then your conclusions are invalid.

 

[Hodos]

The Scriptures DO affirm the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary IMPLICITLY (which is just what you would expect with such a private delicate matter).

If they affirm it, then demonstrate it. From the text, not speculation.

What is the subtle but unmistakable implication here?

An attack on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And NOW look how Jesus responds!

Jesus now tells em outright "Your Father is THE DEVIL!"

WOW!

They set Jesus off on THAT assertion.

Let’s listen in.

Yes, we both agree that the Jewish assertion that Jesus was born from fornication is a spurious lie. That does not prove the perpetual virginity. It supports the virgin birth of Christ. Once again, you are trying to make a terrible speculation, by making a jump in logic that the text in no way supports, yet denying what Matthew says rather explicitly. Also, this passage doesn’t address the Immaculate Conception since the Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary’s conception, not Christ’s conception. Your point number three has to do with the blasphemy against the spirit and breaking the 8th Commandment (notice Jesus called them children of the Father of lies). Nowhere in the text here does Jesus assert that his Mother did not engage in the normal God ordained relationship of marriage, which would not be fornication or adultery, with her husband Joseph. He is addressing the charge that his birth was by fornication.

So much eisegesis, so little time…

 

[RobynP]

You’re misreading the arguments, then. You’ve asserted that we must read it in the way that you read it. The arguments against your claim demonstrate that this is not true – it is possible to read it other ways.

It’s like if an atheist came in and asserted God can’t possibly exist, because the existence of evil disproves him, and Christians offer some reasons to think that that it’s possible God could coexist with evil because of x,y,z.

And the atheist just responds “your belief is just based on speculation how can I possibly be expected to believe it.”

Uhh no…?

 

[Hodos]

And the atheist just responds “your belief is just based on speculation how can I possibly be expected to believe it.”

No, the atheists rejects the evidence out of hand, whereas here I am presenting the evidence from the testimony of the apostles. Apples to oranges comparison.

 

[RobynP]

You claimed that Catholic doctrine is based on a speculation that Matthew might not be using adelphos to mean full blood brothers. But that’s just not true.

 

[HopkinsReb]

The arguments in this thread are approaching the platonic form of the circle. Same things, over and over and over again.

Hodos isn’t going to convince the Catholics because the Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura.

The Catholics aren’t going to convince Hodos because he does believe in sola scriptura.