Did Jesus have siblings?

[Rightlydivide]

The article says no such thing. The author is simply presenting the strength and depth of the language used that identify the overshadowing of Mary with the privilege of a husband, and thus the singularity of her relationship with God, and thus why this relationship which formed the Child in her womb prohibits any human claim for marital rights on she who is the Ark of the New Covenant. This title of the Virgin recalls another level of meaning of “overshadowing”, which, likewise, illustrates the uniqueness of the Mother and Child, i.e., the overshadowing of the tabernacle in the wilderness, this overshadowing echoing the hovering of the Spirit over the waters at Creation. Thus we have the New Creation born from the overshadowing of Mary, whose flesh is fittingly inviolate because of the One Whom she bore.

I find it telling you find the reality of the marital significance of the overshadowing of Mary distasteful while at the same time being so accepting that the womb of the chosen Mother of God would not have been inviolate

In attempting to isolate one definition or use of overshadowing, I think it would be more helpful to examine how it is used in the Bible itself:

episkiazō
In its five uses, does it ever denote sexual or marital relationships outside of the time this article is contending it does?

Act 5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid [them] on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

 

[NDfan]

Your argument is flawed because you can’t give another - or clearer instance for this supposed sexual union. All you can do is to come up with names of relatives who are listed as the children of another Mary and her husband Cleopas (Alphaeus).

---

The word used in Matt. 1:18 (sunerchomai) does not connote that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations – simply that they lived together. Later, in verse 25, the word “hoes hou”, when seen in context with other passages, does not offer proof either.

---

Your insistence on the position that hoes hou**** always ****means change would have us believe that Jesus lied to us in the verses I gave to you

---

Your earlier comment in Post #81 states that “She did have relations with her husband Joseph IMO based upon scripture.”*** I submit to you that you cannot*** and have not proven this.

---

***Finally, I simply cannot accept that you – a person of the 21st century can offer me a ******clearer opinion or know more about the matter than the giants of the faith who preceded you by almost 2000 years and lived a mere 2 or 3 centuries after the fact. The Early Church Fathers disagree with you - namely, ***Leporius, Athanasius, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan, Didymus the Blind, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Hilary of Poitiers.

Elvis I would challenge you to show me any documents from the early church fathers that came immediately after the Apostles demonstrating their understanding that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no children. The gentlemen I speak of specifically are Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. The reason I specify these are they supposedly studied under the Apostle John who definitely would have known Mary.

Saying that folks who came a few hundred years later held to this belief is no more valid than someone from the 20th century. A few hundred years is plenty of time for new beliefs to begin that have no roots in the strict early church. The fact is we don’t see any devotion to Mary until around the 4th or 5th centuries. Mary was always highly thought of but never received the devotion and beliefs that the Catholic church currently has.

PEACE

 

[ChristIsLord]

Saying that folks who came a few hundred years later held to this belief is no more valid than someone from the 20th century. A few hundred years is plenty of time for new beliefs to begin that have no roots in the strict early church. The fact is we don’t see any devotion to Mary until around the 4th or 5th centuries. Mary was always highly thought of but never received the devotion and beliefs that the Catholic church currently has.

PEACE

sort of like modern day protestants who don’t follow luther’s teachings on mary?

*"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. "

(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. "

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . "

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5} *
The Protoevangelium of James references much of mary’s perpetual virginity, it is ascribed around 120 A.D. but not inspired so not sure if you count that as a reference. anyway historically the Church doesn’t make something a Dogma or even come out with a ruling until something that is common knowledge begins to be threatened by a heresy.

 

[NDfan]

sort of like modern day protestants who don’t follow luther’s teachings on mary?

*"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. "

(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. "

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . "

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5} *
The Protoevangelium of James references much of mary’s perpetual virginity, it is ascribed around 120 A.D. but not inspired so not sure if you count that as a reference. anyway historically the Church doesn’t make something a Dogma or even come out with a ruling until something that is common knowledge begins to be threatened by a heresy.

I’m not sure why you reference Luther as I’m not Lutheran. Be that as it may, citing Luther as believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity doesn’t make it so. To the converse I can introduce you to plenty of Roman Catholics that don’t believe this either. So while some Lutherans may not hold to all doctrines that Luther taught, many many Roman Catholics don’t hold to the teachings of their own church. Luther was also gravely mistaken to say Jews always referred to cousins as brother or sister. That simply is not so.

With regard to the Protoevangelium of James or Infancy Gospel of James as it is also called, I find it quite amusing that anyone would try to use this as defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I don’t say that in disrespect mind you. But this work as you say is not considered to be inspired and was never accepted at all by the church. Aside from the obvious contradictions to Matthew there is no reason to believe this is a reliable document. I also believe 120ad is a little early for this. In my studies it was found to be a little younger and probably dates closer to the end of the 2nd century.

Also creating dogma only when it is threatened by heresy is not entirely accurate. There are plenty of dogmas created by the church that weren’t as a result of a heretic trying to teach something else.

I’ll leave you with this thought. If someone denied that your children were yours stating they were only nieces or nephews, I think it would be safe to say you would be most offended. We can say Mary may have had children based on the text of scripture. There’s no reason to believe otherwise accept that a belief was created outside of scripture.

PEACE

 

[ChristIsLord]

There’s no reason to believe otherwise accept [sic] that a belief was created outside of scripture.

PEACE

according to you, we’ve already shown plenty in this dialogue to the contrary. this is your personal reading of the scripture that does not in fact line up with mine.

i quote luther as he is widely regarded as the founder of protestantism, yet he held most of the doctrines of mary that modern catholics do. this goes in response to your statement that hundreds of years is plenty of time for changes in doctrine to creep in.

as for the protoevangelium of james i said it is not inspired, you wanted a writing earlier than 300 ad and i gave it.

throughout history most of the time you tend to have the giants of the church commenting strongly on something is when something simple and understood in the church is threatened by a heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

Marchoi if you study the Greek you will see that the tense of the sentence impacts what is being said here. The Angel is telling Mary that she will conceive in the present tense. That it’s going to happen like right now. Mary being betrothed and not finalizing the marriage for possibly several months doesn’t understand how this could happen immediately as the Angel is saying.

The Greek word used for man is the word Aner which in Greek is an affectionate term used when a woman refers to her husband. So Mary wasn’t saying how can this be since I don’t know a man, implying she would never have sex. The strict tense of the text would show Mary’s response as being: how can this be since I have not yet had sex with my husband. Not that she never planned to. But the timing to her would conflict with what the Angel was telling her. The Angel is speaking that it will happen immediately to which Mary’s understanding is prior to marriage.

PEACE

NDfan,

I think your fighting a straw-man. We Catholics know that Mary did not say “How shall this be, since I’m not planning to have marital relations ever?”

The real issue is with your claim that Gabriel’s words indicated immediacy. I’m still waiting for you (or anyone else) to back that up with some evidence.

 

[NDfan]

according to you, we’ve already shown plenty in this dialogue to the contrary. this is your personal reading of the scripture that does not in fact line up with mine.

i quote luther as he is widely regarded as the founder of protestantism, yet he held most of the doctrines of mary that modern catholics do. this goes in response to your statement that hundreds of years is plenty of time for changes in doctrine to creep in.

as for the protoevangelium of james i said it is not inspired, you wanted a writing earlier than 300 ad and i gave it.

throughout history most of the time you tend to have the giants of the church commenting strongly on something is when something simple and understood in the church is threatened by a heresy.

The infancy Gospel of James cannot be used simply because we don’t know who wrote it and again it was not accepted by the early church. So based on that your reference to it doesn’t fulfill my request. I didn’t ask for just an early writing per se. I asked for something from the ECFs and more specifically from the ones who followed the Apostles. We believe Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius had direct contact with John who as we read in scripture was caring for Mary. Yet they never write anything close to the belief of Mary that is held today.

 

[NDfan]

NDfan,

I think your fighting a straw-man. We Catholics know that Mary did not say “How shall this be, since I’m not planning to have marital relations ever?”

The real issue is with your claim that Gabriel’s words indicated immediacy. I’m still waiting for you (or anyone else) to back that up with some evidence.

I’m not fighting anything nor did I ever claim to know exactly what Mary said. I simply offered a more strict interpretation of what the Greek shows.

As far as Gabriel’s words I gave you proof by offering what the Greek shows.

 

[SIA]

Elvis I would challenge you to show me any documents from the early church fathers that came immediately after the Apostles demonstrating their understanding that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no children. The gentlemen I speak of specifically are Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. The reason I specify these are they supposedly studied under the Apostle John who definitely would have known Mary.

Saying that folks who came a few hundred years later held to this belief is no more valid than someone from the 20th century. A few hundred years is plenty of time for new beliefs to begin that have no roots in the strict early church. The fact is we don’t see any devotion to Mary until around the 4th or 5th centuries. Mary was always highly thought of but never received the devotion and beliefs that the Catholic church currently has.

PEACE

You are exactly right. In fact, Purgatory never was spoken of prior to the 5th centuryeither. A person has to do much more to show just exactly what the early Traditions were and who practiced them than to just merely ask us to accept it as said. Your post was well directed.

 

[AshleyBelle]

You are exactly right. In fact, Purgatory never was spoken of prior to the 5th centuryeither. A person has to do much more to show just exactly what the early Traditions were and who practiced them than to just merely ask us to accept it as said. Your post was well directed.

I’m not sure about this statement… maybe somebody can correct me if I’m wrong. But didn’t the Jewish people also believe in purgatory?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis I would challenge you to show me any documents from the early church fathers that came immediately after the Apostles demonstrating their understanding that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no children. The gentlemen I speak of specifically are Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. The reason I specify these are they supposedly studied under the Apostle John who definitely would have known Mary.

Saying that folks who came a few hundred years later held to this belief is no more valid than someone from the 20th century. A few hundred years is plenty of time for new beliefs to begin that have no roots in the strict early church. The fact is we don’t see any devotion to Mary until around the 4th or 5th centuries. Mary was always highly thought of but never received the devotion and beliefs that the Catholic church currently has.

PEACE

And I could just as easily challenge you to produce documents from these same men to refute the Catholic position on Mary.

A good reason why you won’t be able to is because this probably wasn’t an issue at the time and was accepted belief. When Jerome wrote Against Helvidius in the 4th century, it was because this was becoming an issue with certain heretics. Many of the “Reformers” also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

This is the importance of the oral tradition St. Paul speaks of (and so many Protestants reject) in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Tim. 12:14 from the source of all truth, the Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

Again, I believe this rejection by Protestants stems from the rejection of Church and Papal Authority.

---

 

[SIA]

according to you, we’ve already shown plenty in this dialogue to the contrary. this is your personal reading of the scripture that does not in fact line up with mine.

i quote luther as he is widely regarded as the founder of protestantism, yet he held most of the doctrines of mary that modern catholics do. this goes in response to your statement that hundreds of years is plenty of time for changes in doctrine to creep in.

as for the protoevangelium of james i said it is not inspired, you wanted a writing earlier than 300 ad and i gave it.

throughout history most of the time you tend to have the giants of the church commenting strongly on something is when something simple and understood in the church is threatened by a heresy.

I think that that are some misconceptions about what Luther believed and practiced regarding Mary. Luther did not regard Mary in exactly the same way as Catholics do. Luther did however honor Mary and recognize her in a much more proactive fashion than most Protestants do today. Less than 10 years following Luther’s departure from the Roman church, the newly separated from Rome Anglicans viwed Mary in a much different way than do Catholics. To this day, these same proclamations regarding Mary are the same in the Anglican Communion as they were in 1534. Anglicans honor and regard Mary considerably more than most other Protestants, but do not hold to the Marian dogmas of Catholicism.

 

[SIA]

I’m not sure about this statement… maybe somebody can correct me if I’m wrong. But didn’t the Jewish people also believe in purgatory?

Not according to the definition of Purgatory by the RCC.

 

[SIA]

And I could just as easily challenge you to produce documents from these same men to refute the Catholic position on Mary.

A good reason why you won’t be able to is because this probably wasn’t an issue at the time and was accepted belief. When Jerome wrote Against Helvidius in the 4th century, it was because this was becoming an issue with certain heretics. Many of the “Reformers” also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

This is the importance of the oral tradition St. Paul speaks of (and so many Protestants reject) in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Tim. 12:14 from the source of all truth, the Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

Again, I believe this rejection by Protestants stems from the rejection of Church and Papal Authority.

---

The refutation is the Bible.

 

[cfrancis]

Marchoi if you study the Greek you will see that the tense of the sentence impacts what is being said here. The Angel is telling Mary that she will conceive in the present tense. That it’s going to happen like right now. Mary being betrothed and not finalizing the marriage for possibly several months doesn’t understand how this could happen immediately as the Angel is saying.

The Greek word used for man is the word Aner which in Greek is an affectionate term used when a woman refers to her husband. So Mary wasn’t saying how can this be since I don’t know a man, implying she would never have sex. The strict tense of the text would show Mary’s response as being: how can this be since I have not yet had sex with my husband. Not that she never planned to. But the timing to her would conflict with what the Angel was telling her. The Angel is speaking that it will happen immediately to which Mary’s understanding is prior to marriage.

PEACE

This is an observation re: the original Greek. RightlyDivide stated “heos hou” always indicates change, but this doesn’t appear to be the case in the NT.
Here, with 'aner" NDFan says it’s used (implied, exclusively) for husband.
True, “aner” is used for husband, but such is not it’s only use:
Mk 6:20
Lk 9:32
Acts 2;22
Acts 3:14
Acts 6:3
1 Cor 11:9
Eph 4:13

I don’t believe either the “heos hou” or “aner” argument seal the case for the negative.

 

[SIA]

**

This is the importance of the oral** tradition St. Paul speaks of (and so many Protestants reject) in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Tim. 12:14 from the source of all truth, the Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

Again, I believe this rejection by Protestants stems from the rejection of Church and Papal Authority.

---

What are you talking about?
Paul never once pointed to anything that the Catholic church says about Mary in its dogmas. That’s the point! It isn’t there!

 

[ralphinal]

For the record, the Jewish people of Jesus’s time, and many of them today, do beleive in a period of purification between the time of death and entry into paradise. It is not exactly like Purgatory taught by the Catholic Church, but it is a far cry from what most Protestants teach.

 

[elvisman]

The refutation is the Bible.

**Again, as they say in Missouri - SHOW ME. **

 

[elvisman]

What are you talking about?
Paul never once pointed to anything that the Catholic church says about Mary in its dogmas. That’s the point! It isn’t there!

I was speaking of oral tradition in general, not specifically. Also, written tradition - and it IS there!

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not fighting anything nor did I ever claim to know exactly what Mary said. I simply offered a more strict interpretation of what the Greek shows.

As far as Gabriel’s words I gave you proof by offering what the Greek shows.

You said: “The Angel is telling Mary that she will conceive in the present tense. That it’s going to happen like right now.”
But you didn’t offer any proof of that that is what Gabriel’s words indicate.