"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[elvisman]

1. if Mary had other sons, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned them(when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance)…and, on the other hand, if Mary never had any other sons, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned them. The NT mentions brother(s) of Jesus at times when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance…score two for me.

One should note that there is no requirement for the NT authors to describe such a brother as a son of Mary…First, Mary fades into the background after the birth and Jesus is the Lord…so we should expect people to be identified by their relationship to the Lord and not a fading figure. Second, the ancients weren’t fools. They could understand that brother of Jesus would equal son of Mary (unless one was considering a son of Joseph from another wife - either before or after Mary, but neither of those possibilities is mentioned in scripture). Also, with respect to the “cousin” theory, it is only a possibility and it suffers from the problem that Greek does have a word for “cousin,” => anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 where Barnabas is said to be the cousin of Mark. Therefore, Paul, knew of and used the word for “cousin”. Paul, however, does not apply the word “cousin” to James, the Lord’s “brother”, in Galatians 1:19. Luke, who writes one gospel and Acts had a very good command of Greek, but he also doesn’t use the word for “cousin” to describe Jesus’ brethren. The “Aramaic doesn’t have a word for cousin” point is only of any use if:

a) it can be established that the underlying tradition behind the “brother(s)” passages is in Aramaic; and

b) that the recorders of those passages weren’t “inspired” enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”; and

c) even then it is of no use in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” instead of cousin(s) (at Gal 1:19, Luke 8, Acts 1:14) unless we want to assume that they were just confused.

WEAK**.**
First of all – there are MANY instances in the NT where people are referred to as “son of”** those who have little or no prominence in Scripture. Mary was Jesus’ mother but Zebedee’s only credit is that he was the father of James and John – and is virtually silent in the NT. Their mother is also mentioned yet is nowhere near as prominent as Jesus’ Mother. Strange how these “brothers” of Jesus are never mentioned as “sons of Mary” or Joseph . . .**

Finally – the comparisons of the 3 Marys standing near the cross completely blow your theories out of the water since the “other Mary” (mother of James and Joses, Jesus’ so-called brothers) is named as Mary’s (Jesus’ mother)*** Adelphe***** (Sister). Jewish custom prohibits the naming of 2 siblings with the same name. Therefore, Mary COULDN’T have had a sister names Mary and was probably a cousin, kinswoman, neighbor or fellow believer of Mary, Mother of Christ.**

 

[PRmerger]

19 pages later, and still not a single verse from Scripture that declares that these so-called brothers of the Lord are the “sons of Mary” most blessed. :coffeeread:

It seems that if it’s not found in Scripture and one subscribes to “the Bible is the sole authority”, then saying Mary had other children is a man-made tradition that some have been duped by.

 

[Radical]

Yes. Catholics know what it means because we have received the Apostolic Teaching through those He sent to deliver it. …

well Guanophore, it seems that your posts aren’t really adding anything at this time…and we would just be going around in circles if I bothered to answer (although I do know that you love a good circle if it supports your faith )…I will address the bit below and beyond that, please tell me if there was anything (in your last few posts) that you thought really required a response.

They do. Children of another Mary.

your analysis…though worded slightly differently…suffers from the exact same flaws as we have seen with GreyPilgrim’s

Mark 15:47
Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1
nd when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Matt 27:56
among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

If one will take the time (and have the open mindedness) to examine the evidence, it is clear that the Mother of James and Joseph (Joses) was with Mary Magdalene, and Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

here you assume that b/c Salome is named in Mark, then she must have been the described by Matt as “the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee”. Mark 15 reads:
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there
Your assumption is that the 3 women of Mark are the same 3 women of Matthew…it is possible (and maybe even probable), but it is still an assumption.

Mark 15:40
0 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Clearly Mary, the mother of James and Joses (and Jude, the brother of the Lord) is referred to here as “Mary, His mothers sister”.

no, this isn’t clear at all…like Grey:

a) you have failed to note the change in location (when you jump to John)

b) you have failed to note the change in membership;

c) you have failed to mention that the named brethren of the Lord are James, Joseph, Judas and Simon; and

d) having done (a) and (b) you then make a grand assumption (that the 3 women in John apart from the BVM are the same 3 mentioned in Matt and are the same three mentioned in Mark)

and I could add:

e) you have failed to note that both Mark and Matthew report that many women were there

John 19:25-26

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

I have posted these reference for others who are reading the thread, Radical, since you have been shown these simple facts many times, yet continue to deny them.

no, you have produced some facts, omitted some other relevant facts, made an assumption and then declared something to be clear…sloppiness and assumptions are not things to build an argument on

 

[Nicea325]

WEAK**.**
First of all – there are MANY instances in the NT where people are referred to as “son of”** those who have little or no prominence in Scripture. Mary was Jesus’ mother but Zebedee’s only credit is that he was the father of James and John – and is virtually silent in the NT. Their mother is also mentioned yet is nowhere** near as prominent as Jesus’ Mother. Strange how these “brothers” of Jesus are never mentioned as “sons of Mary” or Joseph . . .

Finally – the comparisons of the 3 Marys standing near the cross completely blow your theories out of the water since the “other Mary” (mother of James and Joses, Jesus’ so-called brothers) is named as Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) Adelphe**** (Sister). Jewish custom prohibits the naming of 2 siblings with the same name. Therefore, Mary COULDN’T have had a sister names Mary and was probably a cousin, kinswoman, neighbor or fellow believer of Mary, Mother of Christ.**

elvisman,

All of this sounds like a broken record. I do not how many times this issue has been rebuked? Over and over and over and over,but Radical still insist Mary had more children? :whacky:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

19 pages later, and still not a single verse from Scripture that declares that these so-called brothers of the Lord are the “sons of Mary” most blessed. :coffeeread:

It seems that if it’s not found in Scripture and one subscribes to “the Bible is the sole authority”, then saying Mary had other children is a man-made tradition that some have been duped by.

And, I said that Radical latched on to something he thought he could use from Tertullian and requested he show us the documentation that the belief he professes was taught throughout the years after Tertullian and up until present day. I’ve asked 3 times and have been ignored each time. It definitely appears to be a pick and choose only that which can be used for speculation.

 

[Nicea325]

And, I said that Radical latched on to something he thought he could use from Tertullian and requested he show us the documentation that the belief he professes was taught throughout the years after Tertullian and up until present day. I’ve asked 3 times and have been ignored each time. It definitely appears to be a pick and choose only that which can be used for speculation.

If he has not presented documentation more than likely he never will.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If he has not presented documentation more than likely he never will.

He sticks to speculative, and a personal interpretation, without addressing where the ‘truth’ was generation after generation. Surely God would not have let all those generations go with a corrupted truth?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman,

All of this sounds like a broken record. I do not how many times this issue has been rebuked? Over and over and over and over,but Radical still insist Mary had more children? :whacky:

**I hear ya. **
The only real way to end this debate is for somebody to provide Scriptural or even extrabiblical writings that say Mary had other children and nobody can do that . . .

 

[placido]

19 pages later, and still not a single verse from Scripture that declares that these so-called brothers of the Lord are the “sons of Mary” most blessed.

Do you remember Pharaoh … the more the attempt to convince him, the more the hardening of the heart it seems.

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Nicea325

I happen to wonder about the relationship between these two tenets:

1. The virginal conception, ie Mary’s “ante partum” virginity
2. Mary having sons and daughters after Jesus in her marriage with Joseph, to be identified as the brothers and sisters quoted in some pericopes.

• The gist of 1), that is its christological meaning, is communicated in Matthew 1.20-21, within the same passage you mentioned, by an angel appeared in dream to Joseph.

an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”.

• About 2) we know his brothers did not believe Jesus during His public life

John 7:3-53 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
Mark 3.20-21 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family ( Gr. oi par’autou, those by Him ) ) ** heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

• We can guess that, according to 2), Mary’s (and Joseph’s) children would live with her and Jesus their infancies and adolescences. Can we ?

---

Now, if we accept what above, my point is expressed in the following two steps:
-Unbelief appears hardly reconcilable with knowing what we just read in Matthew 1:20-21. -OTOH growing with Mary, as mother, and Jesus, as brother ( and Joseph, as father ) , appears IMHO hardly reconcilable with NOT knowing that.

Would the three keep that secret to all the other children all the time ?
And no family tale ever came up kinda about Bethlehem, Egypt, or even only what happened in Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 ?
Nothing of that was ever implicitly discernable to any of those siblings living years and years with the Incarnated and His and their own mother ?

.** Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Mat 13

Another couple of cents working on the belief that Mary had other sons and daughters.
1 ) If we accept Jesus had siblings, then their number was, according to Mat 13 at least 4 brothers and least 3 sisters, i’d say 2) there is no clear reason to suppose they would live celibatarian lives . 3) they must have had on the whole a remarkable number of children 4) who in turn must supposedly have had a large offspring. 5) witnesses about this large family’s members, James aside, are surprisingly meager 6) around the half of the second century or so pious unsubstantiated voices come out about Mary’s perpetual virginity . It follows IMHO that 7) the authors and all followers of these tales ignore the existence, within the small community of believers, of the living members of any of the families of Jesus’s siblings 8) they also ignore the existence of their parents and grandparents 9) in a strictly genealogy-aware society, none of the grandchildren or greatgrandchildren of Jesus’ siblings ever is told about this invention, or has nothing to say about that, kinda “*Hey boys, who is going around telling this absurdity that my grandad’s grandma was a perpetual virgin ?” *
I hope this can help P7

 

[Nicea325]

**I hear ya. **
The only real way to end this debate is for somebody to provide Scriptural or even extrabiblical writings that say Mary had other children and nobody can do that . . .

Exactly! I find it very strange and odd that the Son of God had mortal bros and sisters and history goes completely in the dark about their lives?

 

[Nicea325]

He sticks to speculative, and a personal interpretation, without addressing where the ‘truth’ was generation after generation. Surely God would not have let all those generations go with a corrupted truth?

That is what is boils down to…speculation,not concrete facts. As I told Radical, I find it very odd the Son of God had siblings,yet history about their lives is completely in the dark?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is what is boils down to…speculation,not concrete facts. As I told Radical, I find it very odd the Son of God had siblings,yet history about their lives is completely in the dark?

Exactly. I mean, we have all kinds of gnostic literature that was roundly and soundly debunked centuries ago, and yet extant copies are available.

Probably similar to what would happen today if somebody went through a landfill and found copies of the National Enquirer and thrown out copies of “Angels and Demons”. . . Very few people put any credence in the National Enquirer yet nobody goes around and tries to destroy all the copies.

So how come, if there were stories about “Mary and all her children”, these aren’t found in the piles of gnostic trashery? It’s like, “Oh, heck, we’ll just bury these old heretical documents, but we have to utterly DESTROY anything which talks about Mary and children other than Jesus!” . . . and then they were ABLE TO DO THAT for like 1600 years. . .

The evidence is clear. . . There is no ‘primary source’ material that claims Mary had other children. There is no documentary evidence in the immediate period, nor in the first 1600 years of Christianity, that she had other children. The very first Protestant leaders never claimed that she had other children.

The whole thing rests on the faulty translation of some men who decided that ‘they’ knew better than God what He ‘meant’ and who have been trying to impose their man-made, nonScriptural, non-authoritative and vile teaching onto other Christians.

 

[Radical]

Silence in the 1st 2 centuries about Mary? The Protoevangelum of James was written during the 2nd century – about 110 years after the Ascension of Jesus.

welcome to the party elvis…If you had been here from the start, you might have known that the silence that I mentioned had to do with the NT, the works known as the Apostolic Fathers and the 2nd century ECFs…The Protoevangelium of James doesn’t make the list. But thanks for bringing it up…and I note that it would seem that Pneuma07 has now also alluded to it…we have discussed it before on this thread and I note that it is referrenced by those who hold to the “brethren of Christ = previous sons of Joseph theory”. It is used b/c of these passages (emphasis mine):
9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph’s head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying:** I have children,** and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.
17. And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enrol **my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? …18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons **beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem.
There is another work (of about equal reputablility from probably the same area around the same time)…it is called the Gospel of Thomas and it has a passage that reads:
XVI. 1 And Joseph sent his son James to bind fuel and carry it into his house. And the young child Jesus also followed him. And as James was gathering of faggots, a viper bit the hand of James. 2 And as he was sore afflicted and ready to perish, Jesus came near and breathed upon the bite, and straightway the pain ceased, and the serpent burst, and forthwith James continued whole.
So what’s it gonna be?..Could you, Pneuma07, Guanophore and GreyPilgrim have a huddle and decide which scenario it is that you all would like to endorse (tis like herding cats) …is it:

A1) the brethren of Christ are his cousins (and we think that we have proven that from the analysis of the people at the foot of the cross);

A2) the brethren of Christ are his cousins (and we realize that it can’t be proven)
or

B1) the brethren of Christ are the children of Joseph from another wife (and we think the Protoevangelium of James is good proof of this);

B2) the brethren of Christ are the children of Joseph from another wife (but we realize that the Protoevangelium of James isn’t good proof of anything)
or

C1) the brethren of Christ are a combination of his cousins and Joseph’s earlier sons (but we can’t be more precise than that); or

D1) the brethren of Christ are not Mary’s sons, but beyond that, we don’t know who they are exactly

…and (in all cases) we recognize that the lack of uterine brothers does not establish either virginity in partu or virginity post partum…the lack doesn’t address the former and only makes the latter possible

Maybe the four of you and any one else who wants to chime in could clarify what exactly you believe so that I know what position I am responding to…though since A1 has been so well proven by Guanophore and Grey Pilgrim…I gotta think that you should all be A1s

WEAK.
First of all – there are MANY instances in the NT where people are referred to as “son of” those who have little or no prominence in Scripture…

it is a question of Mary’s prominence as compared to Christ’s prominence…

Finally – the comparisons of the 3 Marys standing near the cross completely blow your theories out of the water…

blown out of the water by sloppiness and assumptions?..I must have missed that…but I couldn’t help but notice that Pneuma07 is trying to throw out a lifeline or two…one of you might wanna grab hold…just saying

 

[Nicea325]

you don’t need to worry about that…God kinda did that himself…tis called the incarnation

Apparently you have missed the point. Was not referring to the Incarnation.

and that is why I have reservations about a doctrine called the Trinity…I can’t imagine that man has described God all that well with mere words

Precisely why ancient liturgical churches call it a mystery. We will never comprehend God 100% because He is eternal.

do you actually believe that showing how “brother” could possibly mean something other than blood brother somehow results in the situation where “brother” must absolutely mean something other than blood brother…it doesn’t…not even close

Oh really? And you really believe “Brother” was absolutely a blood brother,despite how many times the term is explained to you? Then how ironic you have yet to show us where Bobby,Mike,Susie,etc were called the “other sons and daughters” of Mary. Sorry,but it is you who wants it to mean something contrary to what has been explained a billion times over.

Quote:
Unbelievable! I guess you never bother to read how the terms 'BROTHERS" and “UNTIL” has been explained to you a billion times.But no,you still insist on your conjecture Jesus had more siblings. ONE MORE TIME: Where does it state (A REALITY WITHOUT A DOUBT) Mary did in fact give birth to other children? Still waiting Radical.

I have never claimed that the Bible states “w/o a doubt” that Mary gave birth to other children…however, I have explained that it is about what is most likely.

There you go again with: what is most likely. What is most likely is the terms were used different in Israel and their native tongue,not what your modern perceptions had led you to believe.

you repeat this as if you think it somehow determines the issue. The Scriptures are not particularly interested in telling us about Mary (once the virgin birth is done)…she falls into the background as the apostles take centre stage around Jesus (and then on their own). As a result of that lack of interest in Mary, there is a silence, and as with the silence from the first 2 centuries, the silence favors my position:

Yes silence favors your argument Mary had NO other children. The Son of God had BLOOD siblings and NOTHING concrete is written about them over a course of nearly 2,000 years? Remember…the Son of God had BLOOD bros and sisters,but get ignored? So you can talk all you want and present any type of argument,but no one here as read anything saying otherwise.

1. if the PVM was a reality, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned it…and, on the other hand, if the PVM wasn’t a reality, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned it. It ain’t mentioned…score one for me.

1. if Mary had other sons, then the NT authors may very well have mentioned them(when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance)…and, on the other hand, if Mary never had any other sons, then the NT authors wouldn’t have mentioned them. The NT mentions brother(s) of Jesus at times when they interacted with Jesus or when they achieved a position of promenance…score two for me.

One should note that there is no requirement for the NT authors to describe such a brother as a son of Mary…First, Mary fades into the background after the birth and Jesus is the Lord…so we should expect people to be identified by their relationship to the Lord and not a fading figure. Second, the ancients weren’t fools. They could understand that brother of Jesus would equal son of Mary (unless one was considering a son of Joseph from another wife - either before or after Mary, but neither of those possibilities is mentioned in scripture). Also, with respect to the “cousin” theory, it is only a possibility and it suffers from the problem that Greek does have a word for “cousin,” => anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 where Barnabas is said to be the cousin of Mark. Therefore, Paul, knew of and used the word for “cousin”. Paul, however, does not apply the word “cousin” to James, the Lord’s “brother”, in Galatians 1:19. Luke, who writes one gospel and Acts had a very good command of Greek, but he also doesn’t use the word for “cousin” to describe Jesus’ brethren. The “Aramaic doesn’t have a word for cousin” point is only of any use if:

a) it can be established that the underlying tradition behind the “brother(s)” passages is in Aramaic; and

b) that the recorders of those passages weren’t “inspired” enough to use the available Greek word for “cousins” when recording those verses…instead they each wrote “brothers” when they actually meant “cousins”; and

c) even then it is of no use in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” instead of cousin(s) (at Gal 1:19, Luke 8, Acts 1:14) unless we want to assume that they were just confused.

Been through this enough times,not repeating the same information.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Mat 13

Maybe you’re old enough to understand this reference, pneuma.

“Isn’t this the architect Mike Brady’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Carol Brady? And aren’t his brothers Peter and Bobby? And aren’t his sisters Marcia, Jan and Cindy with us?”

Does that prove that Greg Brady came from the womb of Carol Brady?

 

[LOCO]

as I have said:

a) this only expresses a possible alternate meaning of “brother”… as a possibility it is far from the necessary meaning…and it isn’t even the most likely meaning.

b) it hits a wall in dealing with Luke’s and Paul’s use of “brother(s)” …the gospel of John was probably written in Greek as well, so it likely hits a wall there too…and who knows if any (but a few words) of Mark and Matthew was ever recorded in Aramaic.

IMHO you describe a possibility with a rather low probability

Probability may be low but still more convincing than your argument as you cannot provide any supporting evidence to back your ‘interpretation’ which has made in a vacuum. You need to take into consideration the social norms and customs of the day, not apply your customs and social norms of today.

You cannot quote any scripture to support that ‘Mary gave birth to other children’.

Taking the social norms of the day, Jesus cousin’s and possibly even his stepsiblings (Josephs children) if there were any would have been referred to as his ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’ which supports the Catholic view. This is also supported by Scripture which never at any stage states that Mary gave birth to other children, in any case it would have been strange for Jesus to leave her in the care of John.

If she did have other children, then what happened to them, where are their descendants, why aren’t they mentioned elsewhere, why aren’t they recorded in history. They would’ve been vital to preserving that bloodline. Did the big bad CC also get rid of all evidence of their existence?

The argument (I don’t know if it was you or another poster) earlier that Mary’s “other children” were upset with her for following Jesus is entirely speculative and unsupported by Scripture, oral Tradition or any other writings in early church history.

It was also common practice of the day to put on the tombstones of deceased children as ‘the firstborn of …’ even if the mother never had any other children.

 

[Radical]

Probability low but still a possibility as you cannot provide any supporting evidence to back your ‘interpretation’ which has made in a vacuum.

not sure what you mean by vacuum…There are a couple of fellows here that first deny that Mary had any other sons (so as to eliminate the references to Jesus’ brothers James, Joseph, Judas and Simon in scripture) and then argue that history (including scripture) is silent wrt these alleged siblings…is that your vacuum?..if so, it is achieved by begging the question

You cannot quote any scripture to support that ‘Mary gave birth to other children’.

agreed

Taking the social norms of the day, Jesus cousin’s and possibly even his stepsiblings if there were any would have been referred to as his ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’ which supports the Catholic view.

I wouldn’t say “supports”…it only makes it possible…from there we should consider probability Also, and this seems to be missed or avoided on so many…there are 3 parts to the PVM. Ante parum, in partu and post partum. Ante partum isn’t at issue. In partu would absolutely not in any way be established even if you could prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Mary never had any other kids…it is an unrelated fact. Likewise, post partum would not in any way be established even if you could prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Mary never had any other kids…as one can enjoy sex w/o having another kid (post partum would just be made more likely by that proof). Finally, the PVM is only as strong as its weakest link…which, from over here, is probably the in partu bit.

This is also supported by Scripture which never at any stage states that Mary gave birth to other children, in which case it would have been strange for Jesus to leave her in the care of John.

the explanation that none of his siblings were believers at that time makes it possible…from there we should consider probability

The argument (I don’t know if it was you or another poster) earlier that Mary’s “other children” were upset with her for following Jesus is entirely speculative and unsupported by Scripture, oral Tradition or any other writings in early church history.

not me…but it seems that it would also be an irregularity if step-brothers existed

It was also common practice of the day to put on the tombstones of deceased children as ‘the firstborn of …’ even if the mother never had any other children.

again…not an argument that I have advanced

 

[guanophore]

not sure what you mean by vacuum...There are a couple of fellows here that first deny that Mary had any other sons (so as to eliminate the references to Jesus' brothers James, Joseph, Judas and Simon in scripture) and then argue that history (including scripture) is silent wrt these alleged siblings...is that your vacuum?...if so, it is achieved by begging the question

Is your position so weak that you must now degrade yourself by pandering falsehoods?

No one here has tried to “eliminate the references” in Scripture. On the contrary, we have gone t great lenghts to help you understand them according to the faith of the Apostles that was passed down to us.

Further, we ourselves have produced historical references to these close kinsmen of our Lord.

The fact that we know they were not womb brothers if Jesus does not equate to silence and “elimination”.

the explanation that none of his siblings were believers at that time makes it possible...from there **we should consider probability**

I think that is what this is really all about, Radical. You prefer your own “probabilities” and perceptions to the faith that was handed down from the Apostles. You are unable to trust God to preserve the Truth of HIs word in His One Body, the Church, so you have to replace what is taught with your own sense of probabilities.

 

[elvisman]

welcome to the party elvis…If you had been here from the start, you might have known that the silence that I mentioned had to do with the NT, the works known as the Apostolic Fathers and the 2nd century ECFs…The Protoevangelium of James doesn’t make the list. But thanks for bringing it up…and I note that it would seem that Pneuma07 has now also alluded to it…we have discussed it before on this thread and I note that it is referrenced by those who hold to the “brethren of Christ = previous sons of Joseph theory”. It is used b/c of these passages (emphasis mine):

Actually - I was here at the party early on but was suspended for a couple of weeks. I’m back now (for the time being, at least).

So what’s it gonna be?..Could you, Pneuma07, Guanophore and GreyPilgrim have a huddle and decide which scenario it is that you all would like to endorse (tis like herding cats) …is it:

**I’m not “endorsing” any scenarios within the Apocryphal writings. I was merely pointing out to you that there was no “silence” in the first 2 centuries of the Church about Mary. **

A1) the brethren of Christ are his cousins (and we think that we have proven that from the analysis of the people at the foot of the cross);

A2) the brethren of Christ are his cousins (and we realize that it can’t be proven)
or

B1) the brethren of Christ are the children of Joseph from another wife (and we think the Protoevangelium of James is good proof of this);

B2) the brethren of Christ are the children of Joseph from another wife (but we realize that the Protoevangelium of James isn’t good proof of anything)
or

C1) the brethren of Christ are a combination of his cousins and Joseph’s earlier sons (but we can’t be more precise than that); or

D1) the brethren of Christ are not Mary’s sons, but beyond that, we don’t know who they are exactly

…and (in all cases) we recognize that the lack of uterine brothers does not establish either virginity in partu or virginity post partum…the lack doesn’t address the former and only makes the latter possible

And there is your Achilles Heel. The onus is upon YOU to prove the positive (that Mary had other children) and NOT on us to prove a negative. This is debating 101 . . .

Maybe the four of you and any one else who wants to chime in could clarify what exactly you believe so that I know what position I am responding to…though since A1 has been so well proven by Guanophore and Grey Pilgrim…I gotta think that you should all be A1s
it is a question of Mary’s prominence as compared to Christ’s prominence…
blown out of the water by sloppiness and assumptions?..I must have missed that…but I couldn’t help but notice that Pneuma07 is trying to throw out a lifeline or two…one of you might wanna grab hold…just saying

I personally don’t know if the “brothers” mentioned were 1st cousins or distant relations because Scripture is unclear on the matter. Yes, there ARE a few traditions regarding Mary and the identities of these “brethren”.

**Don’t you find it curious that there ARE numerous traditions (small t) about these people being ANYTHING other than uterine siblings - yet there is not ONE, single, solitary tradition about them being uterine siblings? **

THAT’S where you need to start digging because you’re nowhere NEAR any sort of proof. Unfortunately for you, many people before you have already done the digging and have ALL come up empty handed . . .