S
SonCatcher
Guest
More like 1700 or 1800 as the first Protestants all held to perpetual virginity. The supposition that Jesus had uterine siblings came from an atheist who was attacking Christianity.
- Status
P
Pheonix
Guest
I also don’t understand Steve’s reasoning on this either. How does Jesus possibly having half-brothers or half-sisters disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity? A half-sibling, by definition, is one who has one biological parent in the current family, while the other parent is either his or her step-father or step-mother. Unless the sibling’s biological parent is Mary, then Jesus having a half-sibling due to Joseph being his earthly father does not disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.THE_ENCORE said:
In order to prove that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin, one must prove that these supposed siblings are the biological children of both Mary and Joseph. This has yet to be demonstrated out of all the threads concerning the perpetual virginity, including this one.
P
Pheonix
Guest
Another few points I’d like to add:
For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25) So there will be a point in time when Jesus doesn’t reign?
The point here is that the word “until” is not being used to indicate something happening in the future. It’s being used the same way English uses “until” for idiomatic expressions. Thus, Matthew 1:24-25 does not contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity; it just contradicts your personal interpretation of Matthew 1:24-25.
You actually refute a few points in your OP by pointing the differences in fathers, but then attempt to counter with the illogical quote I cited. Sorry, but your reasoning doesn’t work.
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (232 C. E.)
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (362 C. E.)
- Steve (BornAgainRN), you claim Mary’s perpetual virginity contradicts Matthew 1:24-25. My fellow Catholics know this argument as the infamous “until” fallacy. Are you sure your interpretation of the word “until” in correct? Because if we apply how you’re interpreting the “until” to the following passages, we will get some severe contradictory statements:
For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25) So there will be a point in time when Jesus doesn’t reign?
The point here is that the word “until” is not being used to indicate something happening in the future. It’s being used the same way English uses “until” for idiomatic expressions. Thus, Matthew 1:24-25 does not contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity; it just contradicts your personal interpretation of Matthew 1:24-25.
- Jesus gives John the custody of His mother during His crucifixation. Why was this so? If Jesus had other siblings, then they should have been given custody of Mary. If Jesus did have other siblings, then He broke the Law by giving John custody of His mother. Christianity is thus null-and-void then.
- You had this to say about some other people who have the same name as these supposed “brothers of the Lord.”
Pray tell, why do James and Joseph have to be paired as “brothers of Simon and Judas” in order for them to be the same people mentioned in your text proof of Matthew 13:54-57? Practically every time a son or daughter is mentioned in Scripture, it will something along the lines of “James the son of Zebedee.” Shouldn’t that be the standard for these people? Why do you suddenly change your standard for these so-called siblings by arguing “in order for these people to be the same ones in Matthew 13:54-57, they MUST be identified as the brothers of Simon and Judas.” This is illogical reasoning at its finest, I’m afraid.
You actually refute a few points in your OP by pointing the differences in fathers, but then attempt to counter with the illogical quote I cited. Sorry, but your reasoning doesn’t work.
- And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut (Ezeckiel 44:2)
- Allow me to quote some of the Early Church Fathers:
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (232 C. E.)
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (362 C. E.)
- The Early Church Fathers were astounding biblical scholars. Likewise, the original Reformers, though they disagreed with the Church on many counts, were also very well-versed in Scripture. If your text-proofs were really a problem for Mary being a virgin her entire life, then why did these scholars believe that she was?
A
adrift
Guest
If this is what BornAgainRN thought than the quote provided to prove it false really is troubling.Regarding the Immaculate Conception,this refers to Mary being immaculatlely conceived,free of original sin,as she was chosen by God to the Christ Bearer.A lot of misunderstanding by and including Catholics to believe this refers to Mary’s conception of Christ.
A
adrift
Guest
Catholics do deny that Jesus had half brothers. If Joseph had children, than they would be stepbrothers.THE_ENCORE said:
P
Patavium
Guest
Teachings of the Early Church on Mary (video)
catholic.com/video/how-did-the-church-fathers-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary
catholic.com/video/how-did-the-church-fathers-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary
A
adrift
Guest
I deleted a post that disputed this but after thinking about it I realize something. First I was going to say that they would not be half brothers but step brothers. But what I didn’t consider is that Joseph is Jesus’ adoptive father therefore children of Joseph would be Jesus’s half brothers. Nothing in the quoted verse disputes this.
po18guy
Well-known member
What gets me is that Catholic teaching on Mary has zero to do with the salvation of those who attempt to demean her. So, what spirit impels them against the Mother of God?
P
Patavium
Guest
P
Patavium
Guest
Are the Church Fathers of the Catholic Church in the bible? Like Popes?
catholic.com/video/are-any-church-fathers-mentioned-in-the-bible
catholic.com/video/are-any-church-fathers-mentioned-in-the-bible
P
Pheonix
Guest
I think it’s a combination of the following:
- The Catholic Church teaches that the Marian dogmas were taught by the Apostles, yet they do not see these teachings explicitly defined in Scripture. (But where does Scripture say something has to be explicitly stated within Scripture in order to be true?)
- The anti-Catholic myth that the Church proclaims anathema on anyone who disagrees with her teachings. (Which, as I told BornAgainRN, the Catholic Church does not teach this; you can only be excommunicated if you’re Catholic.)
- Dogmas MUST be believed by members of the Catholic Church. Protestants, specifically anti-Catholics, believe that since they cannot see said dogmas in Scripture, the Church has no right to impose such a requirement on her members.
- The typical myth that “the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel.” Because of this myth, some people believe that Catholics are condemning themselves to Hell. These people thus want to correct the “false, pagan teachings of the Catholic Church” with the “TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and hopefully bring the “poor, misguided Catholics” to “an assured salvation by proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior.”
However, I also think it’s not so much that they’re against Mary, in and of herself. They’re against the myth that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon who teaches a false gospel influenced by paganism.” In other words, since they’re against a majority of Catholic teaching, they’re naturally against the Marian dogmas.
po18guy
Well-known member
This was probably about 10 years after the Apostle John died.
T
tabycat
Guest
:sad_yes: Not just all of the threads here, a few years back on another b board. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a favorite for threads.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
In order to answer your question, you would have to read my post, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus using the Scripture passages provided, in order to see that Mary gave birth to at ‘least’ 6 children (4 sons & at least 2 daughters). Give it a try!
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Mary had no other children. Not according to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
Actually, if you read the Bible verses I provided, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, you’ll see that not only was John, the disciple that Jesus loved, who He entrusted His mother to, you’ll find that John was Jesus’ cousin. So, John was not ‘unrelated’ to Mary, but rather, John was Mary’s nephew. Jesus entrusted His mother to John, because His half-brothers did not believe Him (John 7:3-5; c.f. - Psalm 69:8 - an OT prophecy that tells us the Messiah’s mother would have CHILDREN - plural). Jesus willed that His mother would be cared by not only a family member, but also a believer.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Mary had no other children according to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary(John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary(John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The Psalm you cite does not support your assertion. Look at what it actually says.
8] I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.
Where does this say that these sons were from Mary? The only mother there was Mary since Joseph’s previous wife had died and left him with their children. Also, there’s a significant absence of Joseph in the New Testament record after Jesus is 12 years old.
B
BornAgainRN
Guest
I’m glad that someone finally brought up the ‘Protoevangelium of James,’ or the Infancy ‘gospel’ of James. THAT is where the belief of the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ gained steam, not the Bible. It was actually written sometime between 140-170 A.D., & in addition to teaching the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary,’ it also states that its author was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage (which it couldn’t have been, because by this time, ALL the James’ in Scripture would have been dead), that Mary was 16 at the Annuniciation, that Joseph was elderly when Jesus was born, & that Gabriel was an archangel (even though the only archangel mentioned in Scripture is Michael), among other things. What all these things have in common, including the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary,’ is that ‘none’ of these beliefs are in the Bible. Yet, Origen (185-254 AD), an early church father, was aware of this false ‘gospel’ & rebuked it. So, I’m glad that you confirm where these Catholic beliefs are actually from. Again, if you write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus using the Bible passages from the original post, even if you don’t believe ‘my interpretation’ 
you’ll see if you allow SCRIPTURE to speak for itself, you’ll see that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus in Matthew 12 & 13 are Jesus’ actual half-brothers & half-sisters. Just give it a try. That’s all I’m asking.
you’ll see if you allow SCRIPTURE to speak for itself, you’ll see that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus in Matthew 12 & 13 are Jesus’ actual half-brothers & half-sisters. Just give it a try. That’s all I’m asking. - Status