Jesus' Siblings

[CEM5]

PS: I wonder if there are any good refutations of this accusation out there (which could show that the doctrine of St. Mary as ever-virgin isn’t just another pagan borrowing)?

We have the prediction of a virgin giving birth to the messiah in the OT.

Latin Vulgate: (italic bold: virgin shall conceive)

Is 7:14 - 14 propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce*** virgo*** concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel 15 butyrum et mel comedet ut sciat reprobare malum et eligere bonum
Douay-Rhiems

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel

In Isaiah 9:6 we have the promise of the incarnation as well

6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

So, even before the NT we have the OT prophesies.

I would like to know exactly which pagan stories tell of a virigin birth?

 

[Trebor135]

We have the prediction of a virgin giving birth to the messiah in the OT.

Neither of those prophecies speak of the Mother of God retaining her virginity on a permanent basis, though. One can be called a “virgin” with no implication as to whether they will ever marry or not.

I would like to know exactly which pagan stories tell of a virigin birth?

JK8619 seemed to be implying that some kind of Christian-pagan admixture occurred regarding not the doctrine of the virgin birth but that of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[CEM5]

Neither of those prophecies speak of the Mother of God retaining her virginity on a permanent basis, though. One can be called a “virgin” with no implication as to whether they will ever marry or not.

JK8619 seemed to be implying that some kind of Christian-pagan admixture occurred regarding not the doctrine of the virgin birth but that of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Thanks Trebor.

Ok, so regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary…It reasons that Mary is the holy vessel who carried within her holy womb, the incarnate body of God, in the person of Jesus, our Emmanuel. Jesus is the “Word” of God and our Mannah (Bread) from heaven as well as our High Priest.

This is why Mary is considered (and called) the “Second Ark of the Covenant”.

The Ark of the Covenant as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the most witnessed in Sacred Scripture. St. Luke the Evangelist clearly shows that the Ark of the Covenant prefigures (symbolizes or foreshadows) in a most profound way, the Mother of Jesus. Luke does this through introduction of Old Testament themes and prophecies by allusions rather than direct assertions of prophetic fulfillment.

In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the holding place of the tables of stone on which is written the 10 Commandments signifying the “Word of God”. It also contained a jar of manna, the bread from heaven. The rod of Aaron, signifying priesthood, was also placed inside the ark.

Hebrews 9:4 reveals the contents of the ark:
4 In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;

In the New Testament, we are told that Mary carried in her virginal womb the Word Made Flesh, (Word of God), the Bread of Life, (Manna), and the High Priest of our Redemption: Jesus Christ.

Luke made use of parallelisms between the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant and Mary.

In** Luke 1:35**, Mary is said to be “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High. In the Old Testament, the “Shekinah” or the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant. Exodus 40:34-38
What was the ‘shekinah’?

On the 10th day of Tisri in the Hebrew calendar, (October 10th), the Day of Atonement, Elohim revealed Himself to the high priest. This phenomena occured one day of the year after the high priest sprinkled blood toward the Ark during his three trips into the Most Holy Place (Lev. 16th Chapter). Between the wings of the cherubim (angels) within the cloud, there appeared a bright light of Elohim called the flash of the ‘shekinah’. Also see Exo. 24:9-10 (This overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, the shekinah presence of God, in effect made her the consecrated “spouse” per se, of the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore, no one could “touch” Mary).

**Rev. 11:19; 12:1 –**Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (This is why she is called Queen of Heaven, not only because of this, but because Jesus is king, and she is the Queen mother).

It should be kept in mind that when the Book of Revelation was written, there were no chapter and verse divisions in any of the Scriptures. These divisions came centuries later. The Ark and the Woman, in the tableau seen by John in heaven, was one and the same.
In the Old Testament the Ark was so holy that no one was allowed to touch it. God commanded that the Ark was to be transported using poles, (Exodus 25:12-15) and if anyone touched the Ark they would die. (Numbers 4:15)

15 When Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the sanctuary, as the camp sets out, after that the Kohathites shall come to carry these, but they must not touch the holy things, or they will die. These are the things of the tent of meeting that the Kohathites are to carry.

2 Samuel 6:6-7, (also 1 Chr. 13:10-11)
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. 7 The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God

So, if this Ark made of wood and other man-made materials was considered holy and untouchable,*** how much more would Mary have been holy***, for she actually carried God in the human form of Jesus inside her? Therefore we can see that Mary was not to be touched either. Joseph would have known this, and he accepted his role in Mary’s life to protect her and God’s Son, Jesus.

Therefore, Mary remained a Virgin, consecrated (dedicated/devoted) to serving God full-time.

Mary and Joseph’s sole purpose in life was to raising, protecting and being there for Jesus and thus serving God. NOT reproducing more children.

Blessings,
CEM

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would like to know exactly which pagan stories tell of a virigin birth?

Lord Buddha is an obvious one isn’t it (600 years before Jesus)?
And I am not sure whether Buddhists consider it “a story.” Do we consider Jesus’s miraculous birth “a story”?!
Also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

However the original contention was really about pagan myths of **Perpetuual Virginity **being incorporated into the Jesus “story” only from around 400AD.
Rome’s tradition of Vestal Virgins (who apparantly may not have been so virginal when off duty) would possibly be one source.

In any case I believe there is merit in C.S.Lewis’s observtions:
*“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens - at a particular date in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where to a historical person under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.” (C.S. Lewis, Myth Became Fact, found in God in the Dock, pp. 66-67.) *

 

[Trebor135]

Thanks Trebor.

You’re welcome.

Ok, so regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary…It reasons that Mary is the holy vessel who carried within her holy womb, the incarnate body of God, in the person of Jesus, our Emmanuel. Jesus is the “Word” of God and our Mannah (Bread) from heaven as well as our High Priest. …

The argumentation you provide here offers a splendid example of typology. I’ve seen the linkages in your post made before–thank you for laying them out for the benefit of all readers, present and future, of the thread.

 

[adrift]

Lord Buddha is an obvious one isn’t it (600 years before Jesus)?
And I am not sure whether Buddhists consider it “a story.” Do we consider Jesus’s miraculous birth “a story”?!
Also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

I don’t believe it was considered a virgin birth only a conception without intercourse. His mother’s name was Queen Mayadevi and his father’s name was King Shuddhodana.

 

[sw85]

I am in a discussion on another forum with a fire and brimstone Baptist minister. I am a former Catholic. Naturally he is trying desperately to “save” me. I’ve been arguing that essentially his beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are no different from Catholic beliefs. He believes in one god, Jesus was the Son of God who healed the sick, performed miracles and so on. But still he insists that Catholics believe in a “false doctrine” because Catholics, among other things, pray to Mary and deny the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters in order to preserve Mary’s perpetual virginity. I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but rather try to gloss over the subject so as not to raise uncomfortable questions. But I held back on that argument because I am not sure if it is accurate. So I thought I would raise the subject here and see what Catholics have to say. Do you believe Jesus had brothers and/or sisters? If so what does that say about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

References to Christ’s “brothers and sisters” are a Hebraism. It was common to refer to one’s cousins in this way.

This is a major problem among fundamentalist Protestants – their tendency to interpret the Bible according to modern sensibilities and styles of speech. It leads to lots of theological problems.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t believe it was considered a virgin birth only a conception without intercourse. His mother’s name was Queen Mayadevi and his father’s name was King Shuddhodana.

I think you will find that the common understanding of the phrase “virgin birth” is indeed “conception without intercourse.” (See Wikipedia for example). Of course we are not talking about artificial insemination .

That also appears to be how CEM5 is using the term in his post #99 where he refers to the Emmanuel prophecy (…a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…) immediately beforehand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t believe it was considered a virgin birth only a conception without intercourse. His mother’s name was Queen Mayadevi and his father’s name was King Shuddhodana.

Good point, though perhaps the pagan mythical element alleged in “virigin birth” is more to do with pregnancy/birth without a genetic father than virginity per se or the absence of brothers/sisters.

It is interesting that Jerome (against Jovinianus) assumes current historical understanding of his day (4th century) that Buddha’s mother was a virgin - and has no probs with that.

“To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed down that Budda, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side of a virgin. And we need not wonder at this in the case of Barbarians when cultured Greece supposed that Minerva at her birth sprang from the head of Jove, and Father Bacchus from his thigh. Speusippus also, Plato’s nephew, and Clearchus in his eulogy of Plato, and Anaxelides in the second book of his philosophy, relates that Perictione, the mother of Plato, was violated by an apparition of Apollo, and they agree in thinking that the prince of wisdom was born of a virgin. And mighty Rome cannot taunt us as though we had invented the story of the birth of our Lord and Saviour from a virgin; for the Romans believe that the founders of their city and race were the offspring of the virgin Ilia and of Mars.” (para 42)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

 

[LilyM]

Lord Buddha is an obvious one isn’t it (600 years before Jesus)?
And I am not sure whether Buddhists consider it “a story.” Do we consider Jesus’s miraculous birth “a story”?!
Also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

However the original contention was really about pagan myths of **Perpetuual Virginity **being incorporated into the Jesus “story” only from around 400AD.
Rome’s tradition of Vestal Virgins (who apparantly may not have been so virginal when off duty) would possibly be one source.

In any case I believe there is merit in C.S.Lewis’s observtions:
*“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens - at a particular date in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where to a historical person under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.” (C.S. Lewis, Myth Became Fact, found in God in the Dock, pp. 66-67.) *

Vestal Virgins? They certainly did not bear divine offspring! Besides which, their virginity was not perpetual. Vestals left the order in their mid-30s, after which time they were free to marry and consummate their marriages.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Vestal Virgins? They certainly did not bear divine offspring! .

Lily
I cannot disagree with that - but the question I was suggesting an answer to was simply “…pagan myths of Perpetuual Virginity?”

Besides which, their virginity was not perpetual. Vestals left the order in their mid-30s, after which time they were free to marry and consummate their marriages.

Good point. After some research I have come to the conclusion that there actually is no pagan tradition/myth of Perpetual Virginity - let alone one that was caste onto Mary around 400AD.

I believe JK8619 has been mislead if he thinks this is the case (see his post #88).
What he is probably referring to is a fairly subjective assertion made by one Alexander Hislop in his influential book of 1853 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop). His thesis is that Semiramis (Babylon) and associated myths were grafted onto Mary at the time of Constantine. Hislop seems to mean myths of a virgin-birth and the nature of goddess. Yet this doesn’t seem to make much sense as before Hislop Semiramis was considered a beautiful harlot (having blond hair by the way). Hard to see a pagan perpetual virginity myth here.