Did Jesus have Brothers?

[Gene_C]

I find it interesting that Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, the three “top dogs” of the Protestant Reformation, all continued to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary after they left the church. A couple of centuries later, John Wesley also continued to hold this belief. And they based on Scripture.

Peace,
Gene

 

[FCEGM]

It seems that those who take issue with this Catholic doctrine have enough energy to carp about supposedly inadequate responses, but don’t have the energy to read through the previous threads that have well-addressed the usual objections.

The virginal birth of Christ points to a miraculous conception (that His Father by Nature is God, not a man) by the Holy Spirit (indicating the Trinity of Divine Persons); that Mary had no more children is one way to indicate that Christ is different in some essential way from all other humans. If she had had other children, there would be absolutely no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin, i.e, that He was God the Son become Man. Thus the Perpetual Virginity safeguards the specialness of Jesus as born miraculously, which safeguards His special conception, which manifests His Eternal Pre-Existence. So there is a “logic” to the Incarnation of God as Man and to His being born of an ever-virgin mother.

That Jesus is an only child is but ONE way that his specialness is indicated; it is not a “proof” of it, of course. He is not special because He was the only child of Mary; His uniqueness is but manifested in this way among other ways.

Jesus was not just another child; Mary was not just another Mom. Mary has been recognized as the ‘New Eve’ to Jesus’ ‘New Adam’ since the Gospel of John and throughout the Patristic period. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth are peculiar in that Mary was the spouse of the Father in a rather literal way. She was therefore bound to God in such a way that intercourse with Joseph would have been spiritually adulterous. While Mary was the legal wife of Joseph she was the spiritual “wife” of God. Our Lord and Savior made it clear that some would become eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom and invited those that could to do so. He further reminded us that ultimately after the Resurrection we would be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The reason for this was obvious on a full reading of the NT.The Church would be the Bride of Christ and all of the saved would participate in a direct nuptual realtionship with God through Christ. Human marriage is but a pale shadow of this powerful reality.

 

[Maryam]

Firstly… It is not a figment of the Catholic Church’s imagination that Mary was a Virgin. In fact, St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a DIRECT DISCIPLE of The Apostle John. Ignatius who was martyred around 117 A.D. Wrote the following:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly BORN OF A VIRGIN…

For more on St. Ignatus here is this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Who would know better about the Blessed Virgin Mary than a direct disciple of the Apostle John.

And as far as James and whether he is a brother, Apostle…etc… In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it clearly states that James is a disciple of Christ and the son of another “Mary” and not the Blessed Virgin:

CC 500:

“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

It is always great when people ask questions regarding the teachings and positions of the Catholic Church when sincere… What is not great is when the questions are put in a circular fashion just looking to bait others. If you want your questions answered then try asking with some respect and not with sarcasm that will only continue circular debates which are intended for your entertainment.

God bless all

**my apologies if this info is a repeat… Now I am seeing all in circles after 5 pages of text. lol

 

[BrianH]

Maryam:

Firstly… It is not a figment of the Catholic Church’s imagination that Mary was a Virgin. In fact, St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a DIRECT DISCIPLE of The Apostle John. Ignatius who was martyred around 117 A.D. Wrote the following:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly BORN OF A VIRGIN…

For more on St. Ignatus here is this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Who would know better about the Blessed Virgin Mary than a direct disciple of the Apostle John.

And as far as James and whether he is a brother, Apostle…etc… In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it clearly states that James is a disciple of Christ and the son of another “Mary” and not the Blessed Virgin:

CC 500:

“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

It is always great when people ask questions regarding the teachings and positions of the Catholic Church when sincere… What is not great is when the questions are put in a circular fashion just looking to bait others. If you want your questions answered then try asking with some respect and not with sarcasm that will only continue circular debates which are intended for your entertainment.

God bless all

**my apologies if this info is a repeat… Now I am seeing all in circles after 5 pages of text. lol

perpetual…not virginity…no one is arguing virginity
the church has not always understood…at least that cannot be proved…our date for argument for the perpetual virginity appears to be 200 years after his birth.
To believe that this James is that James…well I will direct you to the previous link and watch some of the most incredible mental gymnastics…well…incredible effort I should say…not at all convincing in reality…but that is what it takes to believe that this family mentioned throughout scripture is not what the Bible says they are. If you have more links to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary is within the first 200 years after his birth, please provide…no one else has provided them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just because the first WRITTEN record be 200 years on, does not mean there were not ORAL records that were far earlier.

“Hold fast to the traditions that were given you, by word of mouth or letter. . .” as Paul says.

The concept of the Trinity was not WRITTEN down in the Bible AT ALL–was it? And it wasn’t something which just “cropped up” at a council and then magically turned into belief. The concept of the Trinity has always existed, but it was not always understood, and (as I said) though it is soundly Biblical it is never outright STATED in the Bible (by this I mean of course that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine persons in one God. Of COURSe the Father, Son, and Spirit are MENTIONED in the BIble, but that particular co-equal part is NOT).

Oral tradition and later written tradition have given us the perpetual virginity of Mary as dogma. Since we believe in the Holy Spirit–whom we are told, IN THE BIBLE–will “GUIDE US TO ALL TRUTH”. . .then we do not need to see somebody’s “cliff notes” on a papyrus dated carefully “53 AD” or some such in order to believe that Mary is ever virgin. The Holy Spirit’s word (which word is THE Word) is good enough for me.

 

[BrianH]

I hear you Tantum…but when I read the Bible…I tend to take it …at face value…but I am not a literalist or an innerantist…dont get me wrong …if there is something that is additional…I need to know it was from the time of the Apostles and does not contradict scripture.
As far as all the tradition quotes…you would agree that he is speaking of traditions from within 30 years after the death of Jesus?? Not something first written down 2 centuries later.
BH

 

[Ortho]

FCEGM:

It seems that those who take issue with this Catholic doctrine have enough energy to carp about supposedly inadequate responses, but don’t have the energy to read through the previous threads that have well-addressed the usual objections.

The virginal birth of Christ points to a miraculous conception (that His Father by Nature is God, not a man) by the Holy Spirit (indicating the Trinity of Divine Persons); that Mary had no more children is one way to indicate that Christ is different in some essential way from all other humans. If she had had other children, there would be absolutely no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin, i.e, that He was God the Son become Man. Thus the Perpetual Virginity safeguards the specialness of Jesus as born miraculously, which safeguards His special conception, which manifests His Eternal Pre-Existence. So there is a “logic” to the Incarnation of God as Man and to His being born of an ever-virgin mother.

That Jesus is an only child is but ONE way that his specialness is indicated; it is not a “proof” of it, of course. He is not special because He was the only child of Mary; His uniqueness is but manifested in this way among other ways.

Jesus was not just another child; Mary was not just another Mom. Mary has been recognized as the ‘New Eve’ to Jesus’ ‘New Adam’ since the Gospel of John and throughout the Patristic period. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth are peculiar in that Mary was the spouse of the Father in a rather literal way. She was therefore bound to God in such a way that intercourse with Joseph would have been spiritually adulterous. While Mary was the legal wife of Joseph she was the spiritual “wife” of God. Our Lord and Savior made it clear that some would become eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom and invited those that could to do so. He further reminded us that ultimately after the Resurrection we would be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The reason for this was obvious on a full reading of the NT.The Church would be the Bride of Christ and all of the saved would participate in a direct nuptual realtionship with God through Christ. Human marriage is but a pale shadow of this powerful reality.

You and Scott Waddell have both given direct responses. However, note that one need not take issue with Catholic doctrine to ask about it. When questions are avoided the issue becomes more interesting. I’d expect firm doctrine to at least have some pretty firm and well known backup.

How does being an only child give us any reason to think Jesus was God? History is loaded with very human folks who are only children. If the only child status is valid, then all those other folks are at least in the running to be God.

A virgin birth of God is just as unlikely for an only child as it is for the first of eight kids. this doesn’t safeguard anything.

The various marriages are interesting. Are we to accept marriage that is not between a man and a woman? If Mary is the wife of God (and also the mother?), and the Church and Christ are married, what happened to the restriction that marriage is between one man and one woman? If these are not real marriages, then what’s the adultery problem?

Is it reasonable to ask if many people see sex as somehow unclean? Note how many use of the word “pure” to describe a virgin. After marriage, is she unpure? Soiled? Dirty?

I also note most of the elevation of celebacy over other states comes from celebates.

 

[tdandh26]

Ortho:

So, you disagree with Pius XII when he said, "The doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy, and of their superiority over the married state, was…revealed by our Divine Redeemer…; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy Council of Trent"

Uh ok yes I agree, So why dont you? I never said I didn’t but you did.

Not sure why you suggest John the Baptist was a sex crazed zombie? You think he was? Who else?

I was pointing to the error in your conclusion.

I said nothing about her first thought being to jump into bed and get pregnant. That idea comes from you. Interesting.

I was not my idea but rather from YOUR idea she could not be a perpetual virgin.

I wonder if Mary ate breakfast? Would she have abandoned that worldly concern since she carried God for nine months? Lunch? Sunny days?

So now we are doing stupid questions eh?

Who did I condemn for being celebate?

Noone but you seem unable to believe it is possible.

So, why don’t you tell us why it is so important to many Catholics that Mary was always a virgin. You say it is not about celebacy, so what is it about?

Gods mercy and love are the wonder of wonders. It is this mercy and love which drew forth son from His eternal dwelling in the Father, to this sinful world, that He might redeem that which had fallen. God, in His divine nature is incorruptible and therefore incapable of being touched by sin. It was for this reason that the Eternal Wisdom created a vessel through which His incorruptible nature could take on human flesh. This vessel itself had to be free from all sin, for if even the slightest hint of sin was in her, the moment the divine nature entered into her she would have died. For inevitably that all powerful incorrutp nature would have, by its very essence, repelled sin with such force as to destroy the vessel which contained sin. For this very reason God created the Immaculate Conception. Thus at her proper age the son of the most High entered into her through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through her He took on flesh, so as to be able to take on the sins of the world, from beginning to end, and suffer Himself as payment for those sins.

 

[Ortho]

Maryam:

Firstly… It is not a figment of the Catholic Church’s imagination that Mary was a Virgin. In fact, St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a DIRECT DISCIPLE of The Apostle John. Ignatius who was martyred around 117 A.D. Wrote the following:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly BORN OF A VIRGIN…

For more on St. Ignatus here is this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Who would know better about the Blessed Virgin Mary than a direct disciple of the Apostle John.

And as far as James and whether he is a brother, Apostle…etc… In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it clearly states that James is a disciple of Christ and the son of another “Mary” and not the Blessed Virgin:

CC 500:

“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

It is always great when people ask questions regarding the teachings and positions of the Catholic Church when sincere… What is not great is when the questions are put in a circular fashion just looking to bait others. If you want your questions answered then try asking with some respect and not with sarcasm that will only continue circular debates which are intended for your entertainment.

God bless all

**my apologies if this info is a repeat… Now I am seeing all in circles after 5 pages of text. lol

How would anybody know someone was born of a virgin? They may believe it, but what would put any writer in a position to know?

 

[Ortho]

Tantum ergo:

Just because the first WRITTEN record be 200 years on, does not mean there were not ORAL records that were far earlier.

“Hold fast to the traditions that were given you, by word of mouth or letter. . .” as Paul says.

The concept of the Trinity was not WRITTEN down in the Bible AT ALL–was it? And it wasn’t something which just “cropped up” at a council and then magically turned into belief. The concept of the Trinity has always existed, but it was not always understood, and (as I said) though it is soundly Biblical it is never outright STATED in the Bible (by this I mean of course that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine persons in one God. Of COURSe the Father, Son, and Spirit are MENTIONED in the BIble, but that particular co-equal part is NOT).

Oral tradition and later written tradition have given us the perpetual virginity of Mary as dogma. Since we believe in the Holy Spirit–whom we are told, IN THE BIBLE–will “GUIDE US TO ALL TRUTH”. . .then we do not need to see somebody’s “cliff notes” on a papyrus dated carefully “53 AD” or some such in order to believe that Mary is ever virgin. The Holy Spirit’s word (which word is THE Word) is good enough for me.

The concept of the Trinity always existed but wasn’t important enough for any of the gospel writers to include?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Brian:

It all comes down to faith. Now, take the Immaculate Conception. This is Church teaching, and it refers of course to the belief that Mary was conceived without sin. There are, I believe, references to the sinless flesh and spotless vessel etc. (written as well as oral) from the early Church Fathers (who, by the way, were carrying on, if you want to believe in Christianity at all, only what they THEMSELVES had learned from the Apostles, or what the Holy Spirit helped them to understand). . .but the actual “writing down” was in 1850 AD, not to “make the dogma happen” but to defend it from those who denied it.

Catholics do not then consider that the Immaculate Conception was conceived (pardon the pun) in 1850. . .they consider it conceived when Mary HERSELF was conceived. Just as they consider the Trinity to have existed in a coequal state prior to whenever some Father of the Church, guided through the Holy Spirit, first took all that he had been taught, both oral and written tradition, and through the Spirit, was able to authentically understand, and then actually WRITE, that tradition. . .

 

[Ortho]

tdandh26 said:
“Wow, Im not sure but I would wager that a person who had had God dwell within them for 9 months probably was sanctified to the point that worldly concerns didnt much enter into her mind.”

So, it’s reasonable to ask about some worldly concerns. Do you wager much?

---

tdandh26 said:
“Gods mercy and love are the wonder of wonders. It is this mercy and love which drew forth son from His eternal dwelling in the Father, to this sinful world, that He might redeem that which had fallen. God, in His divine nature is incorruptible and therefore incapable of being touched by sin. It was for this reason that the Eternal Wisdom created a vessel through which His incorruptible nature could take on human flesh. This vessel itself had to be free from all sin, for if even the slightest hint of sin was in her, the moment the divine nature entered into her she would have died. For inevitably that all powerful incorrutp nature would have, by its very essence, repelled sin with such force as to destroy the vessel which contained sin. For this very reason God created the Immaculate Conception. Thus at her proper age the son of the most High entered into her through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through her He took on flesh, so as to be able to take on the sins of the world, from beginning to end, and suffer Himself as payment for those sins.”

That’s a nice story but tell us nothing about why catholics find it important that Mary wasl always a virgin.

 

[BrianH]

Understood Tantum
For a person who rejects the authority of the Catholic church, not to offend or branch off topic, I seek facts concerning tradition to add or subtract from my views.
BH

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Understood, Brian, and blessings on your search.

As for Ortho, let me turn this around a bit, and ask you, why is it so important to YOU to believe that Mary was NOT always a virgin.

 

[TamaraS]

Ortho:

Interesting anthropology. Also, some Catholics want their beliefs imposed on the rest of society. Given the Catholic teaching on marriage and birth control, it’s reasonable to ask about the extreme import attached to someone never having sex.

On a personal note, I do not force my beliefs on anyone. I just try to live my life as much like God wants me to. I have no control over someone else’s beliefs. But when it comes to protecting life, then I think we do have to be very active in preserving that. I know Catholics “impose” their views on the rest of society as far as issues such as abortion, and euthansia because we have a fundmental responsibility to protect the most innocent and vulnerable. Those things are wrong just because I feel like they are, they are objectively wrong. We have a responsibilty to protect the sanctity of life.

 

[Like]

TamaraS:

On a personal note, I do not force my beliefs on anyone. I just try to live my life as much like God wants me to. I have no control over someone else’s beliefs. But when it comes to protecting life, then I think we do have to be very active in preserving that. I know Catholics “impose” their views on the rest of society as far as issues such as abortion, and euthansia because we have a fundmental responsibility to protect the most innocent and vulnerable. Those things are wrong just because I feel like they are, they are objectively wrong. We have a responsibilty to protect the sanctity of life.

And don’t you find it interesting that the only people for pro choice have already been born.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’ve watched this thread with interest and even chimed in on a few points. I think it has run its course at this point and I will leave and recommend my fellow Catholics study up a little more. Try this dialogue: socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/replies-to-protestants-alleged.html. Note: sometimes the page has funny symbols in it. To correct go to “view”, then “encoding” and select “unicode”. Also, this dialogue does not (as far as I remember) include discussion of earliest dates of the pvm. Frankly the whole It-doesn’t-appear-till-after-300-therefore-it-must-have-been-made-up-whole-cloth-in-300 tack has been more like comedy than actual argument considering the great violence it will do to such novelties as Sola Scriptura.

Scott

 

[Ortho]

Tantum ergo:

Understood, Brian, and blessings on your search.

As for Ortho, let me turn this around a bit, and ask you, why is it so important to YOU to believe that Mary was NOT always a virgin.

I don’t deny it. I don’t affirm it. I don’t think her sex life is any of my business. I really don’t think it is anybody’s business.

 

[Like]

Ortho:

How would anybody know someone was born of a virgin? They may believe it, but what would put any writer in a position to know?

Because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Like]

Ortho:

I don’t deny it. I don’t affirm it. I don’t think her sex life is any of my business. I really don’t think it is anybody’s business.

How could this not be ALL Christians business, when we are speaking of Christ and His Mother?