Did Jesus have siblings?

[guanophore]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

Actually, all the churches that were founded by Apostles accept the Apostolic teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had no other Children. They received what the Apostles taught that Mary was a consecrated virgin, entered marriage with no intention of having sexual relations, and remained a virgin until her dormition.

Anyway, what scholars have to say from any faith tradition is not really relevant. The doctrine of the faith is not determined by what scholars think, but by what was committed once for all to the Church. Right doctrine is revealed by God, not extracted from the pages of Scripture some 2000 years after the fact.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that the church fathers actively eliminated things from the gospels that they did not agree with?

No, but all the 400 + documents claiming to be inspired were scrutinized for conformity with what was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

Or, are you saying that they would eliminate a whole book from the Bible, one as important as Matthew, because it said one thing they didn’t agree with?

This is absolutely what happened. There were dozens of Gospel accounts. Any of them that contained even one reference to something that was contrary to the traditions eliminated the entire book.

Neither one of these seems probable.

Which is why the inspired teaching of God is not dependent upon what we conceive of as "probable’.

As for Origen stating that Jesus did not have siblings…do you know much about Origen or how he perceived the Bible? Origen was one of the biggest proponents of an allegorical reading of scripture in church history. If a text did not make sense to him, he would disregard the literal meaning of it and look to read it allegorically. So, just because Origen mentions that Jesus did not have brothers or sister does not concede that he didn’t think that that is what it literally meant in Matthew.

Yes, all historical writers need to be understood in their context. However, Origen was documenting what the Church received from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I cannot help it.

Maybe not but you can sure help calling yourself Catholic on here when you are not!

 

[guanophore]

This is an interesting statement and I want to be sure I understand it clearly. The Nativity of Mary, an apocryphal gospel, is the basis for the RC doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

No. None of Catholic Doctrine comes from the writings. All of it comes from Jesus, throught the Apostles. It is reflected in the NT, but existed prior to the NT being written.

We find threads of Apostolic Teaching throughout the early writings. The consecration of Mary to God is one of those Teachings. Mary never had any intention of having sex, which is why she told the angel “I know not a man”.

We know that Mary was a virgin because all the Apostles knew she remained a virgin until death, and this is what was delivered to the Church.

A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

I did a review of this gospel and read the pertinent part that relates the announcement to Mary by the angel that she would conceive a son. It states in Chap. 9 that at the time she was betrothed but had not “known” a man. This very closely parallels what I understand to be the RC doctrine. However, the research I found indicates that the Nativity of Mary is a redacted version that dates to the Early Middle Ages, based on sources trace back to about the time of Jerome.

Certainly there are plenty of spurious docurments. The fact that they have some errors in them does not mean they contain no Truth.

When Mary said that to the angel, it was a reference to her vow of virgnity she had made to God.

By contrast, Matthew  1:24-25 states: When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This seems to create a contradiction, and place the teaching of an apocryphal gospel above the teaching in the Bible where it plainly states that Joseph had union with Mary after the birth of a son.

It only seems like a contradiction because you are reading a modern understanding into the word “until”.

 

[guanophore]

Well stated. But I confess that I still don’t get the vehemance that I sometimes see regarding the issue. I don’t know if Mary had additional children, but I’ve read enough about the possibility that I’m not willing to say “No. Absolutely not”. Maybe I don;t get the vehemance, in part, because it’s not like anyone is suggesting that Mary did anything untoward. We’re not talking illicit drugs or anything. If she DID have other children, would it have been considered sinful? No, it seems to me.

And I appreciate your attempt to see it from her point of view, but that doesn’t prove anything. She WAS human, right? And had real emotions? Can you really close the door, and KNOW how she would have felt? Why couldn’t she have loved Joseph?

that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

The vehemence has to do with the pressure to relinquish any part of the Apostolic faith that was once for all committed to the Church. When we start throwing away parts of what we receive, the whole gospel falls under threat of becoming unravelled. As soon as we start to abrogate portions of what was entrusted to the Church as a seamless whole, what aspect of the faith will be next?

We don’t have the freedom to pick and choose which part of the Teaching of the Apostles we are going to accept or reject. It is all, or nothing.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopeople
Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

Actually, all the churches that were founded by Apostles accept the Apostolic teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had no other Children. They received what the Apostles taught that Mary was a consecrated virgin, entered marriage with no intention of having sexual relations, and remained a virgin until her dormition.

Anyway, what scholars have to say from any faith tradition is not really relevant. The doctrine of the faith is not determined by what scholars think, but by what was committed once for all to the Church. Right doctrine is revealed by God, not extracted from the pages of Scripture some 2000 years after the fact.

And it is not that simple. Yes, today the Catholic Church with the Orthodox maybe the only ones to hold that Mary had no other children but that is because protestantism has changed. The early church never taught that Mary had other children. The protestant “reformers”, Luther, Calvin and Zwinglii, never taught that Mary had other children. It is only in the last 150 years or so with the rise of the fundie evangelicals, who previously were known as “the know nothings” that the idea that Mary had other children became popular. But for the first 18 centuries no christian held that opinion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Along with that thought, one has to consider who would have a better understanding of the faith – those that were taught directly by the apostles and their immediate successors or folks who came along over a thousand years later and drew drew their own conclusions?

 

[Roy5]

To me personally, it doesn’t matter if Mary had other children. I would not be upset if Mary and Joseph were a normal happily married couple who enjoyed the God-given physical pleasures of marriage. In a sense, that would make them a more ‘model family’ than if they remained celibate within marriage. That seems a bit bizarre, as though God were somehow elevating celibate marriages above traditional ones.

 I presume others have cited this (I have not read all the postings), but I find Matthew 1:24-25 of particular interest. My translations reads: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he was called the name Jesus."

 Elsewhere in scripture "knew her" meant had sexual relations (e. g., Gen. 4:1). That is one of the special joys and privileges of marriage and I see less problem with that than if they never consummated their marriage. That would be viewed as wrong today, sufficient cause for a quick annulment. What sort of example is that for the rest of us?

 

[inkaneer]

To me personally, it doesn’t matter if Mary had other children. I would not be upset if Mary and Joseph were a normal happily married couple who enjoyed the God-given physical pleasures of marriage. In a sense, that would make them a more ‘model family’ than if they remained celibate within marriage. That seems a bit bizarre, as though God were somehow elevating celibate marriages above traditional ones.

 I presume others have cited this (I have not read all the postings), but I find Matthew 1:24-25 of particular interest. My translations reads: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he was called the name Jesus."

 Elsewhere in scripture "knew her" meant had sexual relations (e. g., Gen. 4:1). That is one of the special joys and privileges of marriage and I see less problem with that than if they never consummated their marriage. That would be viewed as wrong today, sufficient cause for a quick annulment. What sort of example is that for the rest of us?

The problem with your interpretation of Mt 1:24-25 is that it goes beyond what the scriptures actually say. Now if the scriptures specifically say that Mary had other children or if the scriptures say that so and so was a child of Mary then, and only then, do you have a basis for your interpretation. But the scriptures say none of that. The purpose of Mt 1:24-25 is to state that Joseph had absolutely no part in the conception of Jesus. Mt 1:24-25 makes no claim as to what did or did not, happen afterwards.

It seems strange to me that people who claim to be sola scripturists like to add to the scriptures when it suits their purpose and also to take away from the scriptures likewise when it suits their purpose. Thus their “purpose” does not appear to be a proper exegesis of the scriptures and only the scriptures but rather to further their agenda which is to oppose anything Catholic. For it is only by attacking Catholicism that they can make any attempt to justify their perverted belief system. Protestants refuse to accept the ongoing belief in the early church that Jesus was Mary’s only child. Thus they make no claim of historical evidence for their beliefs because there is no historical evidence to support them. Protestants only claim is to do what Peter said not to do. That is to twist scripture. But Peter warned of the consequences of doing this. It leads to their own destruction.

Protestantism still has to answer why it has changed its position on the issue of whether Jesus had any siblings for the early protestant “Reformers” certainly taught that Mary was and remained a virgin. Why is there this profound silence on this revision of protestant doctrine. Why doesn’t protestantism face itself in the mirror and quit pretending to be something other than what it really is. That being a heretical movement with no claim to the Truth other than that small share of the deposit of Truth it has retained of Catholic Church teaching. I would like for any protestant to prove to me that the Epistle to Philomen is inspired. They can’t for unfortunately for protestants there is no inspired table of contents and all they really have is a 500 year history of accepting the Catholic Church’s word on it. That being the case then every protestant better hope and pray that the Catholic Church does possess the authority to bind and loose that it claims to have because if the Catholic Church did not have that authority then the canon of scripture is not divinely inspired but nothing more than a tradition of man and with that the whole of christianity is relegated to the dumpster of history. The gospel becomes nothing more than the mythology of the current era replacing the Roman mythology which replaced the Greek mythology which replaced the Egyption mythology and so on and so on.

 

[kepha1]

To me personally, it doesn’t matter if Mary had other children. I would not be upset if Mary and Joseph were a normal happily married couple who enjoyed the God-given physical pleasures of marriage. In a sense, that would make them a more ‘model family’ than if they remained celibate within marriage. That seems a bit bizarre, as though God were somehow elevating celibate marriages above traditional ones.

Yes,. and Mary was just yer average woman “full of grace” who is blessed among all normal blessed woman, Joseph was just your average just man, since the bible has “just men” on every page, and Jesus was just your normal child.

I presume others have cited this (I have not read all the postings), but I find Matthew 1:24-25 of particular interest. My translations reads: “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he was called the name Jesus.”

This is beating a dead horse.

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” **“Heos” references the past, never the future. **Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

Elsewhere in scripture “knew her” meant had sexual relations (e. g., Gen. 4:1). That is one of the special joys and privileges of marriage and I see less problem with that than if they never consummated their marriage. That would be viewed as wrong today, sufficient cause for a quick annulment. What sort of example is that for the rest of us?

So what you are saying is God would have his only Son be born of a bigamist, or argue that Mary was never really the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and Mary, a perfect vessel for God’s Son, was only perfect during the divine rent-a-womb period, and was passed to a human after God was finished with her. Have you lost all sense of the sacred?

No reformer ever taught that Mary had other children. They never went that low. It is purely man made, that came with the Enlightenment era that unleashed all sorts of denials and false philosophies (communism, atheism). I would go further. It is a doctrine of demons because its final conclusion is a denial of the Divinity of Christ, or his Humanity, which is exactly what we are seeing with low church evangelical cults that got on the slippery slope of Nestoriansim.

Mary was “consummated” (for lack of a better term) with God. The penalty for infidelity in Mosaic Law was stoning to death. If Mary had disobeyed the Law, it wouldn’t make her “full of grace” now would it.

Roy, I urge you to humble stand before God, and ascend to the truth of authoritive, consistent teaching.

 

[guanophore]

 It is interested to note, that while we are not required to shun (vitandi) them, they are to be tolerated  (tolerati). "Tolerated". Still doesn't sound like we are to accept them with open arms.

Do you think you position is consistent with how Jesus related to sinners?

 

[Major_Tom]

It seems strange to me that people who claim to be sola scripturists like to add to the scriptures when it suits their purpose and also to take away from the scriptures likewise when it suits their purpose.

(First off, I’m not a sola scripturatist…)

So you’re accusing the other side of picking and choosing parts of the Bible when it suits them? Fair enough.

Yet, one of the key pieces in this debate is the Proto-Evangelium of James, isn’t it? So you can buttress your claim with a non-Biblical work, when it suits your purpose? I think this is how it appears to a layman.

 

[inkaneer]

(First off, I’m not a sola scripturatist…)

So you’re accusing the other side of picking and choosing parts of the Bible when it suits them? Fair enough.

Yet, one of the key pieces in this debate is the Proto-Evangelium of James, isn’t it? So you can buttress your claim with a non-Biblical work, when it suits your purpose? I think this is how it appears to a layman.

If you are not a sola scripturist then what are you? At least if you were a sola scripturist you would be a Trinitarian not a Unitarian. You would believe that scripture was inerrant Unitarians as we know them today did not exist until 1830 AD. Among some protestant groups Unitarians are not even considered Christian. At best Unitarians present a picture of God as being a scizophrenic alternating between three modalities of Father Son and Holy Spirit. At worst Unitarians deny that Jesus was God. So which are you?

As far as picking and choosing far be it. The Protoevangelium of James is out there and in the early days of the church was considered in many localities to be inspired. But it never made it into the canon of scripture and Catholic teaching is not based on it. Rather Catholic teaching is based on the scriptural accounts as well as the oral teaching of the Apostles which the written teaching supports 100%. Then there is the fact that nowhere in the early history of christianity does anyone claim to be a brother of Jesus nor does history record that anyone claim to be descended from anyone related to Jesus. That, as I posted before is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. If you want to prove the Catholic church wrong on this one then all you have to do is provide the evidence that proves a claim that anyone was descended from a brother or sister of Jesus. But no one can do it.

.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Do you think you position is consistent with how Jesus related to sinners?

I think that my position shows obedience to the instructions that Jesus give to His followers …[bibledrb]Matthew 10:14-15[/bibledrb]… on how we are to treat those who reject the faith.

 

[Roy5]

Okay. I am not a sola scriptura Protestant either. I am of mixed religious heritage, eager that there be understanding and mutual respect among Christians whatever their church affiliation.

  The point is made that the Reformers believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Perhaps so. But the essence of Protestantism, as I understand it, is that there is freedom of thought. I'm sure there are Protestants who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. Then there are people like me. It's not important. There is nothing wrong or immoral or scandalous about a man, yes, even Joseph, sleeping with his wife. I see that as an act of love, even a holy act of love. Catholics could get an annulment if a marriage is not consummated.

  Now, this bigamy thing. I guess I don't get it. Mary and God were not married. Mormons, as I understand them, believe that God the Father had a human physical relationship to produce Jesus. Catholicism certainly doesn't teach that - well, I hope not. 

  Mary can be 'blessed among women' and still be married with a loving and intimate relationship with her husband. I don't know the truth for sure, but why is the idea so repugnant to some posters? There seems to be an undertone that normal marital sex is not blessed, that it demeans Mary and Joseph. Quite the opposite in my view. It makes them two humans sharing their love. There are few things more Godly and beautiful than that!

  And if they did have marital relations, why is it so shocking that they may have had other children? Perhaps they didn't, but I find it normal and healthy and happy if they did. I detect a residue of mystery religion paganism in this perpetual-virgin emphasis. In some cults virgin goddesses were revered. Did that 'heresy' invade early Christianity? It certainly wouldn't have come from Judaism. 

 Perpetual virgin or not? Other children or not? Neither impacts my devotion to Christ and my effort to serve him faithfully.

 

[grndslm]

Okay. I am not a sola scriptura Protestant either. I am of mixed religious heritage, eager that there be understanding and mutual respect among Christians whatever their church affiliation.

** The point is made that the Reformers believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Perhaps so. But the essence of Protestantism, as I understand it, is that there is freedom of thought.** I’m sure there are Protestants who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Then there are people like me. It’s not important. There is nothing wrong or immoral or scandalous about a man, yes, even Joseph, sleeping with his wife. I see that as an act of love, even a holy act of love. Catholics could get an annulment if a marriage is not consummated.

  Now, this bigamy thing. I guess I don't get it. Mary and God were not married. Mormons, as I understand them, believe that God the Father had a human physical relationship to produce Jesus. Catholicism certainly doesn't teach that - well, I hope not. 

  Mary can be 'blessed among women' and still be married with a loving and intimate relationship with her husband. I don't know the truth for sure, but why is the idea so repugnant to some posters? There seems to be an undertone that normal marital sex is not blessed, that it demeans Mary and Joseph. Quite the opposite in my view. It makes them two humans sharing their love. There are few things more Godly and beautiful than that!

  And if they did have marital relations, why is it so shocking that they may have had other children? Perhaps they didn't, but I find it normal and healthy and happy if they did. I detect a residue of mystery religion paganism in this perpetual-virgin emphasis. In some cults virgin goddesses were revered. Did that 'heresy' invade early Christianity? It certainly wouldn't have come from Judaism. 

 Perpetual virgin or not? Other children or not? Neither impacts my devotion to Christ and my effort to serve him faithfully.

EXACTLY!!

As far as I’m concerned, nobody has made any affirmation either way that Jesus did or did not have siblings.

James the Just seemed to be the best link to finding a real brother of Jesus, but he was more than likely the first cousin of Jesus.

Soo… we’ve got the Protestants pointing at verbage like “firstborn son” and “no sexual relations until…” And we’ve got Catholics pointing at Jesus, telling John to watch over Mary, which wouldn’t have been done if Jesus had any siblings. This act could have been symbolic, metaphoric, or just a play on words… all of which are common in the teachings of Jesus.

It’s impossible for you to REALLY know unless you asked Mary herself.

I’m with you, tho… it makes no difference to me either way if Mary was a virgin or not, if Jesus had siblings or not. The Spirit and Word are all that matter.

 

[kepha1]

Now, this bigamy thing. I guess I don’t get it. Mary and God were not married.

Who was the father of Jesus if God and Mary were not married? Was Jesus illegitimate?

Mormons, as I understand them, believe that God the Father had a human physical relationship to produce Jesus. Catholicism certainly doesn’t teach that - well, I hope not.

Catholicism teaches that Jesus got his humanity from his mother. She was the perfect vessel for a perfect Son. Whatever God makes holy, stays holy.

Mary can be ‘blessed among women’ and still be married with a loving and intimate relationship with her husband.

The love that Joseph and Mary had for each other bound by God’s love transcended the sexual component that normal relationships have because Joseph and Mary did not have a normal relationship. It’s Mary and Joseph, not the Cleevers.

I don’t know the truth for sure, but why is the idea so repugnant to some posters? There seems to be an undertone that normal marital sex is not blessed, that it demeans Mary and Joseph. Quite the opposite in my view. It makes them two humans sharing their love. There are few things more Godly and beautiful than that!

Normal Catholics wholeheartedly agree, but the celibacy or continence of Joseph and Mary, or their holiness, does not denigrate marital sex. Joseph is a symbol of the Patriarchs and Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Their betrothment symbolizes the union of the Mother of Humanity with Isreal. Only the High Priest could enter the Temple into the Holy of Holies once a year. God overshadowed Mary and said yes. Any non-Levite who touched the Ark dropped dead. Even the cart they carried it on had to be new and unused.

Please stop thinking anybody could walk into the Holy of Holies and turn the Ark of the Covenant into a coffee table. Hands off or die.

And if they did have marital relations, why is it so shocking that they may have had other children? Perhaps they didn’t, but I find it normal and healthy and happy if they did. I detect a residue of mystery religion paganism in this perpetual-virgin emphasis. In some cults virgin goddesses were revered. Did that ‘heresy’ invade early Christianity? It certainly wouldn’t have come from Judaism.

Holiness has nothing to do with sexlessness. There are plenty of saints who are mothers and fathers. Married couples are encouraged to have sex more often. Marital sex is a holy act because it mirrors the Trinity. Mary and Joseph were not suffering from any sexual abberations. Joseph was just. This is explicit in the bible. You can’t be just and be sexually deranged impotent prude with retention issues. Mary was full of grace who knew where babies came from (…I know not a man.")

Abstinence is the “can’t have”. Chastity a virtue of fidelity. Both Mary and Joseph were chaste to God and that does not mean sex is bad. Celibacy and virginity does not equate with sexual repression. Joseph and Mary did not have sex because it had no place in their relationship, it doesn’t mean sex is bad.

Perpetual virgin or not? Other children or not? Neither impacts my devotion to Christ and my effort to serve him faithfully.

May god Bless you on your journey.

 

[inkaneer]

Okay. I am not a sola scriptura Protestant either. I am of mixed religious heritage, eager that there be understanding and mutual respect among Christians whatever their church affiliation.

  The point is made that the Reformers believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Perhaps so. But the   I'm sure there are Protestants who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. Then there are people like me. It's not important. There is nothing wrong or immoral or scandalous about a man, yes, even Joseph, sleeping with his wife. I see that as an act of love, even a holy act of love. Catholics could get an annulment if a marriage is not consummated.

  Now, this bigamy thing. I guess I don't get it. Mary and God were not married. Mormons, as I understand them, believe that God the Father had a human physical relationship to produce Jesus. Catholicism certainly doesn't teach that - well, I hope not. 

  Mary can be 'blessed among women' and still be married with a loving and intimate relationship with her husband. I don't know the truth for sure, but why is the idea so repugnant to some posters? There seems to be an undertone that normal marital sex is not blessed, that it demeans Mary and Joseph. Quite the opposite in my view. It makes them two humans sharing their love. There are few things more Godly and beautiful than that!

  And if they did have marital relations, why is it so shocking that they may have had other children? Perhaps they didn't, but I find it normal and healthy and happy if they did. I detect a residue of mystery religion paganism in this perpetual-virgin emphasis. In some cults virgin goddesses were revered. Did that 'heresy' invade early Christianity? It certainly wouldn't have come from Judaism. 

 Perpetual virgin or not? Other children or not? Neither impacts my devotion to Christ and my effort to serve him faithfully.

If, as you say, “The essence of Protestantism, as I understand it, is that there is freedom of thought.” then ask yourself if this was what Jesus taught or is this what the scriptures teach? If this is the essence of protestantism then why do protestants say a Hindu can not be saved? Isn’t the freedomn of thought extend to others who don’t believe in protestantism. And why do protestants point fingers at Catholics? Doesn’t “freedom of thought” extend to everyone, including Catholics? The protestant revolt was not about freedom of thought unless those thoughts were the thoughts of a parental abuse victim whose physical and psychological abuse were instrumental in Luther’s denying any authority that he, himself, could not control. Hence Luther would say what the Bible said, not the church. And the whole of protestantism followed him.

As for your comments on Mary and Joseph the reason we maintain that Mary was and remained a perpetual virgin is the same reason given by Jerome to Helvidius:

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (*Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary *19 [A.D. 383])

The whole protestant idea of Jesus having siblings comes down to one thing. To say Jesus was an only child is too Catholic. This idea was never in protestantism until the anti Catholic movements of the 19th century. Diarmaid MacCulloch, a Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford, a deacon in the Church of England and a historian of the Reformation, wrote that the reason why the magisterial reformers upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity, and why they had a “genuinely deep reverence and affection” toward Mary, was that she was “the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ”, a teaching that was being denied by the same radicals that were denying Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The bottom line to all this is this, Nowhere does scripture say that Mary had other children. Nowhere does scripture say that this person or that person was a child of Mary. The only person descibed by scripture as a child of Mary is Jesus. And finally at no time in the history of christianity did anyone ever claim to be a brother or sister of Jesus nor did anyone ever claim to be descended from such a brother or sister. That is huge in a world where cities boasted of having this or that Apostle’s or saints remains. Yet not a one ever claimed to have a brother or sister of Jesus. Look at the furor over the alleged ossuary box which fraudulenty claimed to be that of James. If you are going to be a name dropper then there is no other name to drop that even comes close to the name of Jesus. Yet down through 2,000 years there is not even a whimper.

 

[StevenFrancis]

" Did Jesus have siblings?"

No. It’s not theologically possible. It’s been declared as a dogma. Mary was perpetually virgin. You can find deeply satisfying explanations of this in the CCC, many places on the web. Even right here at CA under the “Faith” tab.

I hope you enjoy the discoveries as much as I did.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Roy5]

inkaneer

Just a couple of thoghts.

1. As I stated quite clearly, I don’t claim to know whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin or not. My point is that there is no reason why believing Christians can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. I actually find that positive rather than negative. Besides, just about every translation of Matt 1:25 (KJV, NIV, NEB, RSV, Living Bible, Phillips, etc.) strongly suggests that they did live as a normal husband and wife after Jesus was born.
2. My own view of Protestantism is that mainline Protestants certainly are open to differences of opinion among Christians. That’s obvious when I discuss religion with my Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopalian and other friends. They have different interpretations among themselves without rancor. There is no ‘party line’ that they feel compelled to follow. Some, for example, would believe in the virgin birth, some would doubt it, some would disbelieve in it. Some would believe in hell, some would doubt it, some would disbelieve it it. Etc. It’s that freedom to think independently that I find attractive. They don’t worship the Bible but worship God. True, various sola scriptura Protestants tend to be more dogmatic than that. I also find that mainline Protestants, while disagreeing with Catholicism on various matters, are inclined to be very ecumenical, willing and even eager to worship together with Catholics and all other Christians. A main hurdle is that Catholics will not permit them to receive communion and will not receive communion from Protestant clergy. Benedict XVI has even said that Protestant communion is invalid and that they don’t really have churches but ‘ecclesial’ organizations. Oh, and as for Luther and other Reformers, they are no more infallible than any one else. Like St. Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, and dozens of others, they were brilliant but human - thus sometimes mistaken.
3. As to Hinduism. Let me share one expererience from 1997. I spent awhile in India with a Hindu family. We had some interesting discussions and obviously did not agree on theological matters. But when it came to the spirit of Christ, loving God and one’s neighbor, that family was exemplar. My stay with them convinced me that if they weren’t granted eternal life I could be in serious trouble. They certainly reflected the teachings of Jesus. I believe Jesus once said: “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” They did what Jesus commanded, except for embracing certain Christian doctrines. Personally, I don’t believe that doctrines are the core of the Christian message. Jesus, when asked how to enter eternal life clearly answered: love God and love your neighbor. My Hindu friends did that. They had a great love of God as they understood God. Despite the polytheism usually attributed to Hinduism, they were well-educated and saw behind all their gods the one Lord of history - much as Catholics see God beyond all the saints that they may pray to. In that sense, I found that Hinduism and Catholicism were amazingly similar. If no one comes unto the Father but through Christ, and Christ is (as I believe) the essence of mercy and understanding and love, that Hindu family will win the victory over death.
   
   I suspect that some posters will see much as this as heresy. I have no regrets or anxiety about that. The God I worship honors independent thinking, broad acceptance of other expressions of faith, a kind and generous spirit, and efforts to reconcile people of different religions. God objects to narrow-mindedness, harsh judgmentalism, and arrogant dogmatism.
   
   May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.