How many "brothers" did Jesus have?

[Good_Fella]

Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled.The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin.

Chapter XXI.-A Vindication of the Prophecy in Isaiah (VII. 14) Against the Misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint Version.arguments in Proof that Christ Was Born of a Virgin.

“For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained a place through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam into Himself from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should require to be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up in Christ as had existed in Adam, the analogy having been preserved.”
A.H. 3:21.10

Irenaeus is drawing a perfect analogy between Adam and Jesus - the new Adam - to show the Gnostics (who believed Jesus only appeared to be human in the flesh) how God intended to redeem humanity in the most perfect manner; that is by way of recapitulation which required that the Redeemer be as much man as Adam was, but not from tilled soil. So to be fully human the Divine Word had to virginally assume his flesh and blood from a woman. Up to the time of the Incarnation Mary was that virgin, of whose untilled and virgin flesh Jesus would be formed by the power of the Holy Spirit just as God had made Adam from untilled and virgin soil – not through paternal seed. Irenaeus is strictly concerned with convincing the Gnostics of the reality of the Incarnation as it was traditionally believed and taught by the Catholic Church: that Jesus was fully God and fully man born of the Virgin Mary. Mary’s pure womb provided the source of untilled virgin flesh her Son would take from her by his virginal conception, for up to that time she had had no relations with Joseph, just as the soil was still untilled and virginal at the time Adam was created. Neither Adam nor Jesus had earthly fathers but, nevertheless, they were both fully human. Jesus was no more an appearance of man than Adam was.

Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’”
A.H. 3:21.4

Irenaeus is asserting that the Gospel bears witness to the prophecy of Isaiah; that the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, who is God with us. So to prove to his opponents that Mary was actually a virgin at the time of the Incarnation, he points out that she was betrothed to her husband at the time which meant they couldn’t have had conjugal relations before Jesus was conceived. If they had, they would have violated Mosaic law. Legally, Mary and Joseph were already husband and wife during their betrothal, but they had no moral license to engage in marital relations. In Matthew 1:18. the phrase “had not yet come together” or " came together" is sunerchomai in the Greek. This word does not primarily mean “to have sexual relations”. In Scripture this term is frequently used to simply mean to come into the marriage from a period of betrothal. And once the betrothal period was over, Joseph was entitled to bring Mary into his home to at least “conjugally cohabitate” with her.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

Uncharitable.

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC.

Well you have an issue with the Orthodox and with most of the reformers too because they agreed with the OHCAC.

But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

And the problem is that you do not listen to The Church, of which Christ promised to lead to all Truth. The same Church who’s bible you are using but you have removed from it the faith that produced it.

I keep reading over and over again that “first-born” can also mean “only-born” and “bothers and sisters” can mean “cousins”. But what you fail to consider is that they could also mean “first-born” as in the first of others and actual “brothers and sisters”.

As you read those early Church writings, do you find any tradition that speaks to the brothers and sisters of Jesus and their roles in The Church? Certainly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters, The Church would have written about them. On the other hand… you have to explain why Jesus gave Mary to St. John. This would have been against custom and would have insulted his family. A good Jew would never have done this. Or you can try explaining how Jesus had 120 brothers. Does this mean he had 120 sisters too? 240 total?

ESV Acts 1
15In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

I believe the intent of the Non-Catholic Forum was to express and share ideas of our different faiths in a meaningful manner. But I have found this forum is a place for certain individuals to troll and pounce on anyone who would express any ideas contrary to that of the Catholic faith. Throwing insults, accusations, and trying to demean the faith of other is not what Christ taught those of us who follow him. Too bad!!!

The Kool-Aid comment was completely uncharitable. Your view on Mary’s ever lasting virginity runs contrary not only to the Catholic faith, but Orthodox and nearly all of the reformers. Somehow you hold to a minority position, developed in recent times.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

Dr. Blank,

Here’s what Calvin said:

"The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."14

Zwingli :

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."17

Luther :

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

So the OHCAC is not alone Dr. Blank.

Imagine all those in this corner those having a common belief:

• OHCAC
• Orthodox
• Luther
• Zwingli
• Calvin

Are you saying all five above are blind and misled?

Really?

That is quite a …

Preposterous statement.

And illogical I may add.

PnP

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

Oh, we agree, and have stated so, that there is no firm evidence one way or another in scripture.

But that doesn’t mean we “blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells [us] to believe.”

Oh, we believe the Church, since we believe Christ. But we also understand the reasons that the Church holds those beliefs.

For one, the early Church fathers, whom you misrepresented in a previous post, tell us that Mary was Ever-Virgin.

Did you read St. Jerome’s Against Helvidius?

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

Right. So now you know that the Protestants who claim that scripture proves Mary was not perpetually a virgin are wrong.

I keep reading over and over again that “first-born” can also mean “only-born” and “bothers and sisters” can mean “cousins”. But what you fail to consider is that they could also mean “first-born” as in the first of others and actual “brothers and sisters”.

Sure it does. All that means is that this fails as a “proof-text” against the PV.
It seems like your approach is finding a proof-text. That’s not ours.

 

[wmscott]

Throwing insults, accusations, and trying to demean the faith of other is not what Christ taught those of us who follow him. Too bad!!!

I know just what you mean, especially the post from classical_hero on page 2 post #20.

 

[pablope]

Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

Well…don’t you think or consider the same can be said of you…you drink the coolaid of your own private interpretation…and blindly believe your own interpretation…which has no connection from the Apostles…

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture.

Chapter and verse please where this is actually stated?

By the way, we have the example of St. Paul, in determining the truth:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul was led to submit to the Apostles to determine the truth…not decide for himself.

And see how John further expounds this:

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

As the passages above say…it does not say to use scripture to determine truth…but submission to authority…which is what the HS will lead you to.

Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way… I keep reading over and over again that “first-born” can also mean “only-born” and “bothers and sisters” can mean “cousins”. But what you fail to consider is that they could also mean “first-born” as in the first of others and actual “brothers and sisters”. .

Well…and good…but that is why the Bible says the pillar of truth is the Church…not the Bible…and that is why there is the authority of the Church through its magisterial teaching…so that there is no confusion.

 

[wmscott]

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Bible says that Joseph waited until Jesus was born and all the things associated with child birth, before having sex with Mary. Then he consummated the marriage once she was ready. It is a pretty simple concept. There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph was an older man. According to the customs of the day, they were most likely to be teenagers, about 15 or 16 when they got married and again according to Jewish customs, if Mary didn’t have lots of children, she wasn’t considered to be blessed by the lord, so Mary and Joseph having other children is the cutural norm of the day. Mary never took the Nazarite vow.

We are about 100 posts into this since you made these absurd assertions. For some reason I just cant let it go without challenging you.

You specifically say that the Bible says " Joseph waited until Jesus was born and all the things associated with child birth, before having sex with Mary". What Chapter and Verse.

You specifically say that the Bible says “Then he consummated the marriage once she was ready”.What Chapter and Verse.

You specifically say that “There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph was an older man” please cite your reference, and if you say it is the Bible, What Chapter and Verse.

You know what I really do not want to list out all the other dribble you say is Biblical, just prove one to me using the Bible. I*** challenge ***you!!! please do not be a coward or drive by dropping a bunch of lies just to get a reaction.

 

[PRmerger]

But remember how Jesus reproofed her? “Woman, what am I to do with thee?” She did err.

What error did she make?

 

[MartinJordan]

**Hegesippus **refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.

**Irenaeus **refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

**Tertullian ** didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus’ brothers were “really” his brothers, his “blood-relationship” (Against Marcion, 4:19).

Also, Tertulian writes of Mary representing both monogamy and continence:
“…And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.” (On Monogamy, 8)

Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

I am not arguing if Mary was or was not a virgin. The point of my previous post was to refute the false assertion of “Mary NOT being a perpetual virgin” was a MODERN invention of the Protestant movement. And that was simply is NOT true!!!

Interesting your comments seem so similar to the this dubious website : peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html#Perpetual

Can you as a Christian truthfully tell me you didn’t take it from there?. I apologize in advance if Ive misjudged you in any way.

MJ

 

[Porknpie]

Interesting your comments seem so similar to the this dubious website : peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html#Perpetual

Can you as a Christian truthfully tell me you didn’t take it from there?. I apologize in advance if Ive misjudged you in any way.

MJ

Interesting that this website makes no mention of Luther, Calvin or Zwingli’s belief in Mary’s everlasting virginity.

 

[Good_Fella]

**

**Irenaeus ****refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin.

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve being disobedient, for she did not obey **when as yet she was a virgin **… being nevertheless as yet a virgin … having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and the entire human race… so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race… And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve."
[A.H. 3:22.4]

I would like to add to my previous reply to your quoted post a further comment which pertains to the above excerpt that some Protestants also cite in order to prove that Irenaeus implicitly taught Mary wasn’t ever-virgin. Again it involves the phrase “as yet a virgin” being equally applied to both Eve and Mary. The sentence which reads “so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation” explains how Irenaeus had intended the phrase “as yet” to be understood. The father simply meant that Mary was still a virgin up to the time of the birth of Christ, although she was legally married to Joesph as his wife in the first stage of their marriage - the period of betrothal - as set by Mosaic law. In other words, Mary was the wife of Joseph but, nevertheless, she was still (as yet) a virgin at the time she conceived Christ. Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus. Mary conceived her child at the moment she pronounced her *Fiat *at the annunciation, being a virgin. A comparison could therefore be made between Eve and Mary, since the two were married and virgins up to the time of the two respective pivotal events in human history: the Fall and the Incarnation. Eve was a married virgin at the time when she disobeyed God. Mary was a married virgin at the time when she obeyed God. Mary undid Eve’s disobedience by her obedience in a perfectly analogous way according to God’s design. The adverb “as yet” can be used synomyously with “still” given the context of speech. In hindsight we know that Eve eventually gave birth to children after the fall, so it’s easy to assume that Irenaeus meant that she disobeyed God while she was still a virgin. But he doesn’t write that Mary disobeyed God while she was still a virgin, but rather she yielded obedience being a virgin, although she was married - not unlike her anti-type who was also married but still a virgin at the time when she was disobedient to God.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[wmscott]

But remember how Jesus reproofed her? “Woman, what am I to do with thee?” She did err.
.

I am assuming that you are referring to the wedding feast at Cana. read the whole verse, the second half speaks volumes.

John 2:4 4 Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is it to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

Hatdocks Catholic Bible Commentary

Ver. 4. Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet) —See the like forms of speech, Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; &c. — My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim. — Christ’s first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)

 

[Erich]

Yes, it has been debunked a million times over with Roman Catholic conjecture and theory. You drink the coolaid and can’t see anything else. Although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, you choose to blindly believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe.

The difference from a Protestant view is that we follow the apostles’ directions and test the teachings of those who minister against scripture. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought the PV was a myth of the RCC. But as I read scripture and the early church writings, I know there is room for the argument either way.

Luke 10:16 is an absolutely amazing passage. Jesus has just chosen 70 disciples to send out ahead of Him into the towns and places He was going to be passing through. And what does He tell them as He sends them out? “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” That is mind-boggling. If anyone heard the message of any of these 70 disciples, they were hearing not the disciples speak, rather they were hearing Jesus Himself speak through His disciples.

Is there any leader of your denomination of which it could be said, “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me [Jesus Christ]?” Is there any leader of your denomination who speaks with the infallible authority of Jesus Christ? There isn’t, at least, not in any Protestant faith tradition I’ve ever heard of.

 

[Good_Fella]

Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

This might be in reference to what St. Basil and his metropolitan churches didn’t hold as a dogmatic truth on equal footing with belief in the virgin birth. By this time the PVM was more a matter of orthodox pious belief than dogmatic faith. We don’t find the PVM constituting or belonging to a universal magisterial statement (at least not explicitly) until the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553.

*Anathemas against the “Three Chapters”

1. If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious **ever-virgin ***Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[wmscott]

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Mary Ever Virgin