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

[Tomb54]

you are not reading my post carefully enough…I said earliest church fathers…meaning the ones we find in first two centuries AD (I wouldn’t classify the Protoevangelium of James an ECF)

Here is Tertullian’s position wrt the PV of Mary:

• To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not–when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? … Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? …… If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives*; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess. Against Marcion IV .19

.

So I would also not consider Tertullium 1 or 2 nd century since he was 3rd century mainly but as you can see it really does not say that these brethren are Mary’s children either and in fact it points more to near relatives. Of course just as the Bible was in flux in the early Church as the church was being led to all Truths several ECF did not get other things right also. Examples there was a sect that actually took the honoring of Mary too far which the church also had to correct as a heresy. But this does show even in the early church Mary was given much honor and call Virgin or ever Virgin. Even Tertullian calls her Virgin and if she had Children afterwards how could she still be a virgin? Many in the early first 2 cenurties like Iraneus call her the Virgin Mary and again how can she be called Virgin Mary if she was no longer a Virgin?
I will concede that some ecfs thought Joseph might have had other children by a previous marriage but I will also say they then must have been full grown when Jesus was born because you here no mention of them in any of Jesus early life as Mary and Joseph took Jesus places.

Fathers of the Church

Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:

Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

this you claim without a hair of substance to back it up

Oh, you have substance to back up your interpretation is correct in these readings?

besides Tertullian…the earliest I know of would be Helvidius’s work and he appealed to Victorinus…it would seem that the venerators have ensured that those works were destroyed.

Now answer my question, what ECF was the first to expressly teach the three-fold perpetual virginity of Mary?

I asked for you to provide the earliest Christian writings stating Mary definitely had children, from any era. I have asked several times now. You have avoided that question and are now attempting to change the topic.

I’ve also asked if you believe the things you’re posting to denounce a teaching of the Catholic Church, or if you are just looking for anything that you interpret as ‘anti-Catholic’ and using it if though you don’t believe the material you’re using. Avoidance of direct questions, yet again.

Smokescreens and avoidance of direct questions/requests. That speaks volumes, in my honest opinion.

 

[Radical]

Oh, you have substance to back up your interpretation is correct in these readings?

well, I have provided the passages from Tertullian and emphasized the points that he made that are relevant…not much interpretation is required. Tertullian said Mary’s womb was opened and that rules out virginity in partu. Tertullian asked (rhetorically) “…does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them.” The plain meaning of that passage is that Mary had other sons

I asked for you to provide the earliest Christian writings stating Mary definitely had children, from any era. I have asked several times now.

I have answered…I think that it is pretty clear that Tertullian believed that Mary gave birth to other children…and besides him, I have given you the name of Helvidius.

I’ve also asked if you believe the things you’re posting to denounce a teaching of the Catholic Church, or if you are just looking for anything that you interpret as ‘anti-Catholic’ and using it if though you don’t believe the material you’re using. Avoidance of direct questions, yet again.

and I have answered that too…I summarized the passage (again) and remarked “it is definitely a possibility that she had doubts at that time”.

Smokescreens and avoidance of direct questions/requests. That speaks volumes, in my honest opinion.

look in a mirror…and then maybe answer the questions that I have asked.

 

[guanophore]

well, I have provided the passages from Tertullian and emphasized the points that he made that are relevant…not much interpretation is required. Tertullian said Mary’s womb was opened and that rules out virginity in partu. Tertullian asked (rhetorically) “…does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them.” The plain meaning of that passage is that Mary had other sons

So, if another theologian writes that she was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, does that one “rule out” Tertullian?

Trying to form a doctrine using these stray statements of the Fathers is problematic, as you can see.

Besides, as in all writings “plain meaning” differes depending upon the perception of the reader. When I read “does a mother live on conemporaneously with her sons in every case”, to me it is a reference that her son died an untimely early death, and she survived beyond her offspring, which is not usual.

Whe I read “have all sons brother born for them”, I understand it to mean that he had no siblings born of His mother.

And you have yet to respond to the discrepancy in scripture about the names of those called “brethren” and “sisters” having come from a different set of parents than Jesus.

I have answered....I think that it is pretty clear that Tertullian believed that Mary gave birth to other children...and besides him, I have given you the name of Helvidius.

Yes, both Tertullian and Helvidius embraced heresies. The other Fathers are clear on this point. So, you are reaching into the Fathers, finding those who were considered heretics by the early church, and using their writings to support your own view.

I don’t see how such a position can be defensible.

and I have answered that too…I summarized the passage (again) and remarked “it is definitely a possibility that she had doubts at that time”.

I dont’ think they were “doubts” at all - she had complete trust in God. That is why she was not made mute as Zechariah was.

It just did not make sense to her because she had taken a vow of virginity.

 

[LutheranDK]

well, I have provided the passages from Tertullian and emphasized the points that he made that are relevant…not much interpretation is required. Tertullian said Mary’s womb was opened and that rules out virginity in partu. Tertullian asked (rhetorically) “…does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them.” The plain meaning of that passage is that Mary had other sons

I have answered…I think that it is pretty clear that Tertullian believed that Mary gave birth to other children…and besides him, I have given you the name of Helvidius.

and I have answered that too…I summarized the passage (again) and remarked “it is definitely a possibility that she had doubts at that time”.

look in a mirror…and then maybe answer the questions that I have asked.

Some advice? Forget it…these people aren’t interested in a debate - only in twisting your words into something you never intended, and throwing dirt on you in the process. And, per definition, if the sources say something they disagree with…well, then that’s not what the sources say, even if they say it. Confused? Welcome to CAF…

“What does it matter that Tertullian is very clear in what he says? It doesn’t suit us, therefore that’s not what Tertullian meant at all!”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

well, I have provided the passages from Tertullian and emphasized the points that he made that are relevant…not much interpretation is required. Tertullian said Mary’s womb was opened and that rules out virginity in partu. Tertullian asked (rhetorically) “…does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them.” The plain meaning of that passage is that Mary had other sons

I have answered…I think that it is pretty clear that Tertullian believed that Mary gave birth to other children…and besides him, I have given you the name of Helvidius.

and I have answered that too…I summarized the passage (again) and remarked “it is definitely a possibility that she had doubts at that time”.

look in a mirror…and then maybe answer the questions that I have asked.

You have provided no writings that specifically state Mary had other children. You are taking passages of what Tertullian wrote and applying your interpretation to arrive at a ‘speculation’. Tertullian wrote in Greek, which has no term for ‘cousin’, leaving the meaning to be interpreted as blood relatives or ‘step’ relatives. This leaves most of what you’re using up for translation, and interpretation. Your use of Tertullian, who slipped into heresy, shows a pick and choose decision which appears to be a matter of convenience for the argument you’re trying to make and is probably the reason you won’t answer if you believe all that he wrote, or it certainly seems that way.

Why do you discount all the other early Church fathers, who remained faithfully of one mind and judgment throughout history?

Again, you persist in changing the topic of the discussion, without providing that which is asked of you. So, look in a mirror? To continue a discussion where you set biased ‘rules’ for the discussion? I don’t think so. You appear to have an agenda, against Catholicism in whole. It’s easy to see from your participation on these forums. I’m not going to ask again. It’s clear you cannot, or will not, answer honestly.

 

[wmscott]

Yes, both Tertullian and Helvidius embraced heresies. The other Fathers are clear on this point. So, you are reaching into the Fathers, finding those who were considered heretics by the early church, and using their writings to support your own view.

I don’t see how such a position can be defensible.

Just a quick question, did Tertullian or Helvidius accept being corrected for their heresies?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Some advice? Forget it…these people aren’t interested in a debate - only in twisting your words into something you never intended, and throwing dirt on you in the process. And, per definition, if the sources say something they disagree with…well, then that’s not what the sources say, even if they say it. Confused? Welcome to CAF…

“What does it matter that Tertullian is very clear in what he says? It doesn’t suit us, therefore that’s not what Tertullian meant at all!”

These people? Now who is being demeaning?

These people are Catholics on a Catholic forum. If it offends you that we maintain our faith, which is documented well throughout history by other than someone who slipped into heresy, or attempted to build a better Church that Christ built, then the problem lies with you.

There is a certain irony when someone uses writings from someone that they, themselves, do not believe all that was taught by the person they use. It’s the same when different denominations support one another on a single issue they agree on, when there are so many they disagree on, especially if it means telling Catholics they are wrong.

 

[LutheranDK]

These people? Now who is being demeaning?

“As you shout in the forest, so shall you be answered”

• Danish proverb

These people are Catholics on a Catholic forum.

True - but that doesn’t give anyone a carte blanche to be a jerk and twist people’s words to your liking. Or to throw around non-sequiturs and appeals to emotion. Being RC does not = being rude, or unable to carry on polite conversation. I know it doesn’t - I know several.

or attempted to build a better Church that Christ built, then the problem lies with you.

Again: The only reality in which Christ founded what is known as the RCC, is in the minds of RCs. The Greek-Orthodox churches claim the same thing, so do the Oriental Orthodox, etc. And many of them have a lot more credibility to such a claim than the RCC.

There is a certain irony when someone uses writings from someone that they, themselves, do not believe all that was taught by the person they use.

I’ve read this part again and again trying to figure out what it means…and failed…I think.
Do you really claim that unless one agrees with EVERYTHING someone EVER said, then one shouldn’t quote them and use them for ANYTHING? Are you really willing to stand by such a claim?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“As you shout in the forest, so shall you be answered”

• Danish proverb

True - but that doesn’t give anyone a carte blanche to be a jerk and twist people’s words to your liking. Or to throw around non-sequiturs and appeals to emotion. Being RC does not = being rude, or unable to carry on polite conversation. I know it doesn’t - I know several.

I am one of these people.

You and I were involved in a ‘brief’ discussion yesterday. When you pointed out things that appeared offensive to you, I quickly apologized and tried to specifically tone down any rhetoric that might be viewed as offensive, yet you did not acknowledge an apology or my attempts to tone it down. Some people are here looking for a dispute, without considering whether or not they, themselves, are unable to carry on a polite conversation. Now, with this pointed out, who yelled in the forest?

Again: The only reality in which Christ founded what is known as the RCC, is in the minds of RCs. The Greek-Orthodox churches claim the same thing, so do the Oriental Orthodox, etc. And many of them have a lot more credibility to such a claim than the RCC.

Martin Luther, who founded your Church, knew that reality. Was this another one of his mistakes to be ignored as time passes and members of his Church need to justify the ‘reformation’? I find irony, and a matter of convenience, when someone discounts some of their own founders beliefs, simply for the sake of disagreeing with Catholics.

Now you use the Orthodox, yet you are not a member of that Church. This is often used on these forums, leaving all to wonder for what purpose since you don’t agree with them either. We know about the great schism. It is documented in history. We also know the founding of your Church and when it took place and by whom., Again it’s documented in history.

 

[Radical]

So I would also not consider Tertullium 1 or 2 nd century since he was 3rd century mainly…

I wouldn’t quibble over a few years

…but as you can see it really does not say that these brethren are Mary’s children either and in fact it points more to near relatives.

I think you are missing something…if you are trying to use Tertullian’s reference to “near relatives” to say that these brethren were something other than brothers, then please keep in mind that Tertullian also included Mary amongst these “near relatives”…so if “near relatives” makes brothers = cousins, then likewise it would make mother = aunt…and you are not suggesting the virgin Mary was Jesus’s aunt, are you? Also, Tertullian calls them “brothers” and not cousins etc…if he thought that they were cousins or step-brothers, why didn’t he use the right term?..after all, he isn’t writing in Aramaic.

Of course just as the Bible was in flux in the early Church as the church was being led to all Truths several ECF did not get other things right also.

agreed…but we look at the ECFs to determine what was believed by the Church at the time in question…when Tertullian (at the end of the 2nd century/start of third) said Mary didn’t remain a virgin we can be fairly certain that his view was a view that prevailed in Carthage at that time…it is unchallenged by any reputable source from that period.

But this does show even in the early church Mary was given much honor and call Virgin or ever Virgin.

“ever Virgin” takes a while to show up…

Even Tertullian calls her Virgin and if she had Children afterwards how could she still be a virgin? Many in the early first 2 cenurties like Iraneus call her the Virgin Mary and again how can she be called Virgin Mary if she was no longer a Virgin?

kinda like how Clinton and Bush can be still called president Clinton or president Bush when they aren’t holding that position any longer. It is a title of honor that refers back to a significant role that they played…as you point out, Tertullian called her “virgin”, but also stated clearly that her womb was opened…as such Virgin (as used by the ECFs) doesn’t equate to ever Virgin as used later

I will concede that some ecfs thought Joseph might have had other children by a previous marriage but I will also say they then must have been full grown when Jesus was born because you here no mention of them in any of Jesus early life as Mary and Joseph took Jesus places.

how many passages are involved?

Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:

Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);

that’s quite a gap, isn’t it?

 

[Radical]

I don’t see how such a position can be defensible.

it seems to be quite the easy thing to do from over here…but since you are skeptical, I’ll take my time and make a decent effort…hopefully by tomorrow. Cheers.

 

[qOcOp]

Jesus had siblings according to scripture. Not what someone thinks scripture says, but what it actually says.

Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Matthew 13:55
Matthew 13:56
John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:19

This is hardly a vaild argument anyway since scripture cannot interpret itself. The very fact that you believe these verses mean literally Christs brothers and sisters from Mary is and example of what you “think” scripture says.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re imposing 20th-21st century desires upon 1st century texts. That’s a no-go. The one reasonable argument in there, is the question of why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. An answer MAY be (please note the MAY here) that the others had disowned her after she started following Jesus. There might also be an entirely different explanation. But to dismiss the obvious meaning of the text just because it suits badly with your theological position is untenable and poor exegesis.

Personally, I don’t much care if Jesus was an only child or not. It makes no difference.

Except, of course, if one views sexual intercourse as sinful in and of itself, even within marriage AND maintain that Mary was without sin. In THAT case it makes a big difference. But I don’t see any reason to accept those two premises?

On the contrary, those who claim Mary had other children are the one’s imposing 20-21st desires upon a 1st century CULTURE…not texts!

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
well, I have provided the passages from Tertullian and emphasized the points that he made that are relevant…not much interpretation is required. Tertullian said Mary’s womb was opened and that rules out virginity in partu. Tertullian asked (rhetorically) “…does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them.” The plain meaning of that passage is that Mary had other sons

I have answered…I think that it is pretty clear that Tertullian believed that Mary gave birth to other children…and besides him, I have given you the name of Helvidius.

and I have answered that too…I summarized the passage (again) and remarked “it is definitely a possibility that she had doubts at that time”.

look in a mirror…and then maybe answer the questions that I have asked.

You have done nothing of the sort. Please show us from scripture where those so-called brothers are referred to Mary’s sons/daughters?

 

[pneuma07]

“If” Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then…I am curious why Jesus would not have made one them an Apostle? Why no slight detail of little bro’s and sisters by Jesus? No other NT folks (followers of Jesus) discuss them in detail or refer to them as followers? If Mary His Mother followed Jesus,how strange the NT writers make no mention of who took care of Jesus’ siblings?

No mention by the NT writers if they were jealous of Jesus or proud of big bro Jesus? Zilch…nada about them.No word by the ECF’s about their exact names, backgrounds or whereabouts? More important,if Jesus did indeed have blood brothers,strange he would leave the care of His mother to John?

So many unanswered questions about the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus.

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 ?

I hope this can help.
In Christ.

P7.**

 

[dmelosi]

I wouldn’t quibble over a few years
I think you are missing something…if you are trying to use Tertullian’s reference to “near relatives” to say that these brethren were something other than brothers, then please keep in mind that Tertullian also included Mary amongst these “near relatives”…so if “near relatives” makes brothers = cousins, then likewise it would make mother = aunt…and you are not suggesting the virgin Mary was Jesus’s aunt, are you? Also, Tertullian calls them “brothers” and not cousins etc…if he thought that they were cousins or step-brothers, why didn’t he use the right term?..after all, he isn’t writing in Aramaic.
agreed…but we look at the ECFs to determine what was believed by the Church at the time in question…when Tertullian (at the end of the 2nd century/start of third) said Mary didn’t remain a virgin we can be fairly certain that his view was a view that prevailed in Carthage at that time…it is unchallenged by any reputable source from that period.
“ever Virgin” takes a while to show up…

kinda like how Clinton and Bush can be still called president Clinton or president Bush when they aren’t holding that position any longer. It is a title of honor that refers back to a significant role that they played…as you point out, Tertullian called her “virgin”, but also stated clearly that her womb was opened…as such Virgin (as used by the ECFs) doesn’t equate to ever Virgin as used later

how many passages are involved?

that’s quite a gap, isn’t it?

On one hand at the beginning of this post you say 1st 2nd and 3rd centuries is a few years, then at the end of the post you say a lesser time is quite a gap.

As I have followed this thread, you appear to pick and choose when and where you want and ignore the rest.

 

[Nicea325]

On one hand at the beginning of this post you say 1st 2nd and 3rd centuries is a few years, then at the end of the post you say a lesser time is quite a gap.

As I have followed this thread, you appear to pick and choose when and where you want and ignore the rest.

And I am still waiting for him to show us:

From scripture where those so-called brothers are referred to Mary’s sons/daughters?

 

[Radical]

And I am still waiting for him to show us:

From scripture where those so-called brothers are referred to Mary’s sons/daughters?

You have done nothing of the sort. Please show us from scripture where those so-called brothers are referred to Mary’s sons/daughters?

at post 152 of this thread Prodigal said:

And still, no scriptures refers to any of them as ‘child of Mary’.

…and at post 153 I said he was correct…wasn’t that good enough?

 

[Tomb54]

think you are missing something…if you are trying to use Tertullian’s reference to “near relatives” to say that these brethren were something other than brothers, then please keep in mind that Tertullian also included Mary amongst these “near relatives”…so if “near relatives” makes brothers = cousins, then likewise it would make mother = aunt…and you are not suggesting the virgin Mary was Jesus’s aunt, are you? Also, Tertullian calls them “brothers” and not cousins etc…if he thought that they were cousins or step-brothers, why didn’t he use the right term?..after all, he isn’t writing in Aramaic. ?

If he use near relative for Mary then why did he not just use Mary or His mother instead of right term? Looks to be along the same line of thinking. Again at this time maybe Tertullian did not know how the Jewish used the word and he was working off a poor translation since he didn’t know Hebrew or Aramaic in all likelihood.

agreed…but we look at the ECFs to determine what was believed by the Church at the time in question…when Tertullian (at the end of the 2nd century/start of third) said Mary didn’t remain a virgin we can be fairly certain that his view was a view that prevailed in Carthage at that time…it is unchallenged by any reputable source from that period.
“ever Virgin” takes a while to show up…

well let see you are ok with the sacred scripture taking time for the early church to develop by those of the earlist CC fathers (Ignatious, Clement, Polycarb, Irenaeus, etc) but not the teachings on the virginity of Mary to develop. So just like the scriptures taking time to show up what is different about the ever virgin part to show up?

kinda like how Clinton and Bush can be still called president Clinton or president Bush when they aren’t holding that position any longer. It is a title of honor that refers back to a significant role that they played…as you point out, Tertullian called her “virgin”, but also stated clearly that her womb was opened…as such Virgin (as used by the ECFs) doesn’t equate to ever Virgin as used later

how many passages are involved?

let see, Nativity, Journey to Egypt and back, Trip to temple, Jesus lost in temple, Cana, might be missing 1 or 2 more but that is about it and no brothers or sisters.

that’s quite a gap, isn’t it?

Yep the gap is less than it took for the Bible though.