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

[LOCO]

---

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
Radical;7853599:

**

Interpreting in a ‘vacuum’ means you don’t take other influencing factors into consideration. When you interpret any Scripture or historical document you study other credible sources apart from Scripture alone. e.g. we know Jesus existed not ONLY because the Bible tells us but because Roman historical documents of the time also mention him. This also shows atheists etc that he existed, doesn’t mean they believe he was the Christ but they know such a person walked the earth. If it wasn’t for that supporting documentation they wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care just because a bunch of Christians say look it says so in the Bible. Atheists usually don’t care what the Bible says.

**Take the following into consideration.

1.The social norms of the day

1. The religious norms of the day
2. The political norms of the day
3. The language of the day

We do not apply todays norms to the past.

In other words:

1. It was a social norm of Jesus’ day that relatives (brethren) were referred to as ‘brother/sister’ even sometimes ‘best friends’.
2. It was also a social norm of his day that when the firstborn died. The parents were left in the care of another sibling, which did not occur as we know Mary was left in Johns care.
3. The language of the day supports point 1. It was normal to refer to cousins and other relatives as brother/sister.
4. It was a social norm of his day to engrave on tombstones ‘Here lies the firstborn of …’ even though it was known that the mother never bore other children and was past childbearing stage.
   **
   Bolster the above** FACTS** with the following.

**1.Nowhere in Scripture Does it say Mary bore other children.

2.Nowhere in Scripture does it say Jesus left Mary to his so called siblings.

3.Nowhere in Scripture or other historical documents does it mention the other ‘siblings’.
What happened to them, if indeed they existed. Surely, sharing the same DNA as Jesus would be worth tracking, preserving, documenting.

Scripture plus historical documents do not support your viewpoint.**

The Truth demands credible evidence to support it (religious texts and historical secular documents)

Personal opinion is subjective and hardly weighty. Why should we believe you over what the evidence tells us?*

 

[fbl9]

If the fellow was from my church and my church claimed to be the one true Church…then yes, it would call the claim into question.

 

[Radical]

Are you able to demonstrate that James the lords brother in gal 1:18-19 is not one of the 12?

well let’s see…see if you agree that he is not James, the brother of John. At Acts 12:2 James the brother of John is killed by Herod with the sword. Here is what I have posted earlier on this thread regarding tradition dealing with Christ’s family:

Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus :
…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…
… Hegesippus 170 AD (as quoted by Eusebius) writing this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

it seems to me that there is a fellow known as James, the brother of the Lord leading the Church at Jerusalem (and eventually stoned to death) after James the brother of John is killed with the sword. Agreed?

 

[Radical]

Interpreting in a ‘vacuum’ means you don’t take other influencing factors into consideration. When you interpret any Scripture or historical document you study other credible sources apart from Scripture alone. e.g. we know Jesus existed not ONLY because the Bible tells us but because Roman historical documents of the time also mention him. This also shows atheists etc that he existed, doesn’t mean they believe he was the Christ but they know such a person walked the earth. If it wasn’t for that supporting documentation they wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care just because a bunch of Christians say look it says so in the Bible. Atheists usually don’t care what the Bible says.

**Take the following into consideration.

1.The social norms of the day

1. The religious norms of the day
2. The political norms of the day
3. The language of the day

We do not apply todays norms to the past.

In other words:

1. It was a social norm of Jesus’ day that relatives (brethren) were referred to as ‘brother/sister’ even sometimes ‘best friends’.
2. It was also a social norm of his day that when the firstborn died. The parents were left in the care of another sibling, which did not occur as we know Mary was left in Johns care.
3. The language of the day supports point 1. It was normal to refer to cousins and other relatives as brother/sister.
4. It was a social norm of his day to engrave on tombstones ‘Here lies the firstborn of …’ even though it was known that the mother never bore other children and was past childbearing stage.
   **
   Bolster the above** FACTS** with the following.

**1.Nowhere in Scripture Does it say Mary bore other children.

2.Nowhere in Scripture does it say Jesus left Mary to his so called siblings.

3.Nowhere in Scripture or other historical documents does it mention the other ‘siblings’.
What happened to them, if indeed they existed. Surely, sharing the same DNA as Jesus would be worth tracking, preserving, documenting.

Scripture plus historical documents do not support your viewpoint.**

The Truth demands credible evidence to support it (religious texts and historical secular documents)

Personal opinion is subjective and hardly weighty. Why should we believe you over what the evidence tells us?

I don’t have the time right now to respond fully to your post…this bit about social norms is good stuff, but I take it that in order to do the job properly one should consider all the norms that would be in play and not just the ones that support your view…I kinda think that you might have missed a norm or two…and since you seem to be giving a lesson here, let me see if you can clarify a couple of possible norms for me:

a) was it a social norm of Jesus’ day that a wife would have sexual relations with her husband?..I am kinda thinking it was.

b) also, was it a social norm of Jesus’ day for a couple to try and have a number of children and more than one son if at all possible? …you know, kinda not putting all your “who’s gonna look after me when I am old” eggs in one basket.

…I am kinda thinking that you might have missed considering a few norms (not to mention a few facts too) and oddly, they seem to be the one’s that don’t favor your conclusion…just saying

 

[guanophore]

really? I have repeatedly stated that Catholics are my full brothers (no diminishing qualifier such as “separated” needed and I have stated that I view the CC as properly being called a church…would the CC say the same about mine?)…and yet you come up with this? are you trying to be offended?

Sorry Radical. I am sure I confused your Reformed Theology with that of another Reformed poster who does have this position. My apologies.

again, really? I think what happens here is that the Catholics are very, very sensitive about anything to do with Mary and so, as soon as I deny an attribute ascribed to her by the CC, I am categorized as an offensive, disrespectful lout…but understand me on this one thing…from this side of the screen, the level of disrepect seems considerably higher on your side than on mine

You are right, we are very sensitive about the Theotokos. I am also irritated by the suggestion that the Apostles would not know Jesus was an only child, and that they taught their disciples this fact, and there was no one around with enough sense to set the record straight, so all the Churches planted by Apsotles inherited this as part of the Sacred Tradition.

Please give me some feedback when I am offensive, because I know I get heated, and sarcastic at times.

Peace?

 

[guanophore]

If the fellow was from my church and my church claimed to be the one true Church...then yes, it would call the claim into question.

my church gained its teachings through the Borgias (for example)…or not so much them?

Rogues!

 or he left us with his Holy Spirit and with the freedom to stray if we chose to reject his guidance... I kinda recall getting that idea from scripture

Yes, it is in scripture because it is an Apostolic Teaching.

What does not make sense, though, is that people don’t seem to believe that Jesus can preserve His TEachings among those who are faithful to His guidance, and devoted to obedience. I mean, it boggles the mind that every single Catholic everywhere in the world apostazied.

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side here, the early Christians themselves greatly drew to chastity to the point it was common for them to see sexual relations only for procreation. I am referring to early Church history.

The other issue I personally have is that Americans and the modern world have no value for chastity and celibacy. How can the world go round without sex…

It can…and America now has the highest number of unwed teenage mothers…in my time, most girls were virgins and I seldom if ever heard a boy speak trash.

Mary as Theotokis, as virgin goes way back to earliest Christian times…then you get into all the spirituality and theology of being virgin, she conceived without sin, etc.

 

[guanophore]

well let’s see…see if you agree that he is not James, the brother of John. At Acts 12:2 James the brother of John is killed by Herod with the sword. Here is what I have posted earlier on this thread regarding tradition dealing with Christ’s family:

Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus :
…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…
… Hegesippus 170 AD (as quoted by Eusebius) writing this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

it seems to me that there is a fellow known as James, the brother of the Lord leading the Church at Jerusalem (and eventually stoned to death) after James the brother of John is killed with the sword. Agreed?

Yes. In the East, he is called James the Just.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

well let’s see…see if you agree that he is not James, the brother of John. At Acts 12:2 James the brother of John is killed by Herod with the sword. Here is what I have posted earlier on this thread regarding tradition dealing with Christ’s family:

Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus :
…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…
… Hegesippus 170 AD (as quoted by Eusebius) writing this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

it seems to me that there is a fellow known as James, the brother of the Lord leading the Church at Jerusalem (and eventually stoned to death) after James the brother of John is killed with the sword. Agreed?

Your whole argument still assumes your modern and narrow definition of “brother”, not the ancient and more broadly held definition of those who lived in first century Palestine.

Agreed that this James is the “brother”(adelphos-“of the same womb”) of Jesus. If Jesus was his germane brother, why doesn’t he call himself such in his epistle that bears his name?

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino
Hi radical,
Regarding A1
Have you an opinion on whether the James in Gal 1:18-19 is an apostle or not?
If you accept he is, then his father is either
Zebedee or alpheus
See Luke 6:13-16

Originally Posted by Radical
I view James as I do Paul…an apostle, but not one of the 12…Also, given Acts 12:2, you would have to reconsider your options

Originally Posted by panevino
Are you able to demonstrate that James the lords brother in gal 1:18-19 is not one of the 12?

well let’s see…see if you agree that he is not James, the brother of John. At Acts 12:2 James the brother of John is killed by Herod with the sword.

sure did not suggest he was the James of Zebedee, at least that was not my intent (can see how you read it that way) I guess i was trying to point out that if one was to accept that the James in Gal 1:18-19 is an Apostle (of the 12) then his Mother is clearly not the BVM given Luke 6:13-16
as either James in Luke’s list have a specific father named (ie: Zebedee or Alpheus) note the James of Alpheus has a brother called jude (see luke 6:13-16, Jude 1:1).

so i hear what you are saying if the James in Gal1:19 is not of zebedee
we are left with son of Alpheus.

Here is what I have posted earlier on this thread regarding tradition dealing with Christ’s family:

Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus :
…Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

… Hegesippus 170 AD (as quoted by Eusebius) writing this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas,

Judas brother of James of Alpheus? per Luke 6:13-16 & Acts 1:13 & Jude 1:1

who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
and this:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb…

it seems to me that there is a fellow known as James, the brother of the Lord leading the Church at Jerusalem (and eventually stoned to death) after James the brother of John is killed with the sword. Agreed?

yes. is he James son of Alpheus? who also has a brother called judas.
Accepting that the James (brother of the lord) in Gal 1:18-19 is one of the 12
then his brother Judas(luke6:13-16 & Acts1:13) would also be considered a 'brother of the lord" as reflected by Hegesippus in your quote above.
both with Alpheus as the father.

what do you think?

certainly frustrating

 

[placido]

a) was it a social norm of Jesus’ day that a wife would have sexual relations with her husband?..I am kinda thinking it was.

I am not so sure but I remember hearing people say it was also a social norm that no Jewish man would have sexual relations with a woman who has a child by another. Exactly the reason why Joseph wanted to secretly put Mary away.

b) also, was it a social norm of Jesus’ day for a couple to try and have a number of children and more than one son if at all possible? …you know, kinda not putting all your “who’s gonna look after me when I am old” eggs in one basket.

If a couple had to try and have a number of children to make sure they have someone to look after them in their old age, then, the fact that Mary was placed under the care of John is evidence she did not have other children.
Social norms of the time required that the eldest son takes care of there elderly parents and that is what Jesus did till his death on the cross. After Jesus, either James, Judas, Joses or Simon had to take over – if they were indeed Mary’s sons, but no, apostle John is given that task and Jews do not protest. Why? Because Mary had no other children.

 

[placido]

I think those saying BVM had other children are making unreasonable demands.
They are demanding that we believe:

1. That BVM has a sister also named Mary
2. That BVM has sons named James, Judas, Joseph and Simon;
3. That BVM’s sister also has sons named James, Judas, Simon and Joseph.

 

[Radical]

I am not so sure but I remember hearing people say it was also a social norm that no Jewish man would have sexual relations with a woman who has a child by another. Exactly the reason why Joseph wanted to secretly put Mary away.

I think that you are describing a ramification of the actual norm and not the norm itself. The norm would be better described as: Don’t take as your wife or keep as your wife a woman who has fooled around with another man. Since she would no longer be your wife (or wouldn’t become your wife) these ramifications would result: You wouldn’t live with her, you wouldn’t travel with her, you wouldn’t support her, you wouldn’t support her offspring (that you didn’t father), you wouldn’t have sex with her…in other words, she wouldn’t be treated as your wife in any way, shape or form. From what we know, it would seem that Joseph treated Mary as his wife in every way (except that you would like to except out the sexual relations bit). Mary didn’t fool around with another man…so the norm you cited (or the ramifications thereof) doesn’t apply. On the other hand, Joseph did marry Mary, so the norm I suggested would still apply.

If a couple had to try and have a number of children to make sure they have someone to look after them in their old age, then, the fact that Mary was placed under the care of John is evidence she did not have other children.

agreed…it is evidence that must be considered…we also have evidence that a) Jesus’ brothers weren’t believers and b) that Jesus didn’t feel bound by the law (let alone social norms)…so it is possible to explain that action w/o needing to conclude that no other sons existed.

I think those saying BVM had other children are making unreasonable demands.

They are demanding that we believe:

1. That BVM has a sister also named Mary
2. That BVM has sons named James, Judas, Joseph and Simon;
3. That BVM’s sister also has sons named James, Judas, Simon and Joseph.

IIRC #1 is a demand that has been made by your camp…not mine. #2 is just understanding a verse to be talking about only uterine brothers…my position does not actually demand that conclusion. It is possible that James was a prior son of husband Joseph, that son Joseph was a cousin and that Judas and Simon were uterine brothers of Jesus (or some other variation consisting of step-brothers, cousins and uterine brothers) As to #3, I don’t think any one, in either camp, makes that demand.

 

[Radical]

Sorry Radical. I am sure I confused your Reformed Theology with that of another Reformed poster who does have this position. My apologies.

accepted, BTW I am not Reformed…I am from the Anabaptist tradition

I am also irritated by the suggestion that the Apostles would not know Jesus was an only child, and that they taught their disciples this fact, and there was no one around with enough sense to set the record straight, so all the Churches planted by Apsotles inherited this as part of the Sacred Tradition.

that is understandable

Peace?

Peace

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think that you are describing a ramification of the actual norm and not the norm itself. The norm would be better described as: Don’t take as your wife or keep as your wife a woman who has fooled around with another man. Since she would no longer be your wife (or wouldn’t become your wife) these ramifications would result: You wouldn’t live with her, you wouldn’t travel with her, you wouldn’t support her, you wouldn’t support her offspring (that you didn’t father), you wouldn’t have sex with her…in other words, she wouldn’t be treated as your wife in any way, shape or form. From what we know, it would seem that Joseph treated Mary as his wife in every way (except that you would like to except out the sexual relations bit). Mary didn’t fool around with another man…so the norm you cited (or the ramifications thereof) doesn’t apply. On the other hand, Joseph did marry Mary, so the norm I suggested would still apply.

You continue to apply modern cultural views. In reading Numbers, chapter 30, we see it was possible, in those times, for a woman to bind herself by an oath and that a husband could put himself into a position of seeing her fulfill her oath, by ‘…the word that the Lord hath commanded.’

I, and others here, realize that scriptures do not specifically state that Mary made an oath, just as scriptures do not specifically state Mary had any other children. I am merely showing you scriptures exist that refute your idea that it was ‘impossible’ for this type of arrangement to have existed in a Jewish marriage, in those days.

You have said, ‘the possibility’ that she had other children exists, but have come up short stating the possibility of her perpetual virginity also exists. That shows a bias in your position.

You also continue to take the discussion only in the direction that fits your bias and avoid direct requests to show support for what you espouse. Once again, you ‘latched’ on to something you feel you can interpret from Tertullian to support your view, however you have failed to show us that your belief survived among believers throughout the years since then. Without addressing that request, it appears more of an agenda taking place through your posts.

 

[elvisman]

I disagree…you should note that I do not declare that Mary was absolutely not a perpetual virgin…I talk about likelihoods…on the other hand, it is the Catholics who declare that Mary definitely remained a perpetual virgin…It seems to me that if someone is going to declare that X definitely occurred, then that person should either a) prove it definitely occurred or b) admit it is merely a matter of faith. It shouldn’t be “I declare X and now you must prove me wrong”.

That makes SOME sense – in the secularly-logical realm. However, we are NOT simply physical humans, but spiritual as well (John 6:63).

When the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), which is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) and is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) makes a declaration on matters of faith and morals – we must believe or we are just like those whom Jesus warns of in Luke 10:16.

I already know you will take that statement out of context, but read on and you’ll see that I will qualify this with some evidence and Scriptural reasoning . . .

thanks, this is where I thought Catholic scholarship was at…not the “we have proven (a billion times over) that they are cousins” position that I have seen on this thread.

Those who would say that the brethren of Jesus were definitely cousins goes too far – in the sense that they mean 1st cousins. They COULD have been – but then they also could have been distant relations, close friends or neighbors as the word, Adelphos allows for . . .

yeah, I do find it curious…if they were earlier I would even find it convincing…this, to me, is what we should be discussing here - how significant and how convincing are the existing traditions and how significant and how problematic are the silences…but apparently, making those assessments and then drawing a conclusion that doesn’t ratify the Sacred Tradition of the CC makes me a revisionist

**If you bothered to study the history of the Church – from the letters of the NT on – you’d have realized that most of the writings we have deal with controversies. Most things simply weren’t written about unless there was some question or dissent about a particular matter. Virtually *****every ***single letter from Romans to Revelation is about problems in the Early Church because of unbelief, disobedience or dissent.

Have you ever bothered to consider that the issue of Mary probably wasn’t an issue at ALL in the Early Church prior to the 2nd century? All of the councils that followed dealt with heresies and other dissention.

I can live w/o a “proof”…and I much enjoy the study of history…IMHO if you want a good discussion, you must honestly evaluate the evidence (as found in scripture and tradition)…on the other hand, if all that one wants to do, is to declare “We are the true Chruch and so we are right” or “we have apostolic teaching and you don’t, so you are wrong” then that person should simply make that declaration of faith and leave it at that… as there is really then no room left for discussion.

You mean, there is no more room for secular reasoning . . .

If you deny that the Church Christ founded is the “true” Church, which is the foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15, John 16:12-15) with complete earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 8:15-18, John 20:21-23) – then you have rejected Christ himself (Luke 10:16, Acts 9:4-5).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

Precisely my friend,there is no emprical or primary source confirming Mary had other children. Seems like case of poor interpretations of specifc words and a failure to understand the Jewish culture.

 

[Nicea325]

If you bothered to study the history of the Church – from the letters of the NT on – you’d have realized that most of the writings we have deal with controversies. Most things simply weren’t written about unless there was some question or dissent about a particular matter. Virtually every single letter from Romans to Revelation is about problems in the Early Church because of unbelief, disobedience or dissent.

Have you ever bothered to consider that the issue of Mary probably wasn’t an issue at ALL in the Early Church prior to the 2nd century? All of the councils that followed dealt with heresies and other dissention.

The above statements are very true. If the perpetual virginity of Mary had been a hot issue in the early church,then we would have in our possession at least some writings about the matter. Why would the early Christians feel the need to write about something, which was not a hot issue? We scores of writings about the Trinity or Incarnation,but Mary is silent?

 

[pneuma07]

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 !

As you know a frequent response by protestant brothers to that point is that probably the Lord wanted His mother to live with a believer.

Against this solution a clear scriptural counter-argument is IMHO Acts 1

13
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

His “brothers” were part of the post-paschal community from the beginning.

In Christ
P7

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholic answers again show the need to understand the events and their times; we cannot depend on modern thinking and values, and then look at ancient times the same.