I wasn't trying to make the two situations seem comparable, just illustrating that we have to look outside of Scripture because Scripture doesn't address every little detail. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong or that we need to come to conclusions that contradict Scripture. And, due to meanings that were lost in translation, Scripture does not specifically define this issue.

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "brothers" of the Lord were NOT full brothers, simply because Joseph was not his biological father. At the very most they could be half-brothers, step-brothers, or adopted brothers. Due to reports outside of Scripture, the beliefs of early Church fathers, AND Bible passages (that I've cited), I don't think that they were half-brothers through Mary, rather, that they were either cousins, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or simply being referred to in a broad sense of brotherhood.

 

We don't look outside of scripture for doctrine...

 

JMO

 

Stem cell research isn't church doctrine. The perpetual of virginity of Mary is.

I don't think anyone would say that they are his "full" brothers.

Can I assume that you are of the Catholic faith? Would it make a difference to you if Mary did have children and/or didn't live a life of virginity after marriage? I'm not trying to offend you by any means, I'm just trying to see all sides of the argument.

 

It has to make a difference...you'd be rejecting one of the core doctrines of the church.

It has to make a difference...you'd be rejecting one of the core doctrines of the church.

 

Which doctrine is that? :confused:

Historic evidence shows us that many books were left out of the bible. Of the many of these you can find, some just weren't well like enough and some had meanings that differed from what the Church thought was right.

 

For instance

1. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas includes stories about Jesus' childhood, one of which has a young Jesus causes a young boy to wither up and die.

2. The letter of Clement- stories about Jesus and the apostles.

3. The Life of Adam and Eve- provides more "incite" about creation, including Jealous Angels.

4. The Protavagelion of James- provides us with a history of Mary throughout her life.

5. Apocolypse of Peter suggest that the end of days may not be true.

 

Not saying any of these are true, but they were left out.

 

I don't think your assumptions were accurate. The guidelines were more specific than what you mentioned here. Many of the ones that you are mentioning were not written when an apostle was alive who could dispute the claims or were accepted by the early church (those that were actually living when Jesus was ministering) accepted as true.

It has to make a difference...you'd be rejecting one of the core doctrines of the church.

 

As someone else has mentioned, what church.

I have never heard this as a doctrine of the Christian churches I have been affiliated with.

I don't think anyone would say that they are his "full" brothers.

Can I assume that you are of the Catholic faith? Would it make a difference to you if Mary did have children and/or didn't live a life of virginity after marriage? I'm not trying to offend you by any means, I'm just trying to see all sides of the argument.

 

Yes. Not because I think having other kids is inherently sinful, but because it would mean what I believe is wrong and what the Church is saying is wrong. It wouldn't change my belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, though.

 

It's really tough for me to describe it because I can't imagine any scenario in which this would happen.

IMO, it's an intersting premise to explore. Anne Rice has written a series of books that include that premise.

 

But for me, The Virgin Mary was exactly that, a virgin at Jesus' conception, and remained so.

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

 

I agree, I went to a Catholic school and was always taught that when she was taken to Heaven, body and soul, that she went so as a virgin. I was always told that his brothers were actually cousins, that cousins were sometimes referred to as brothers during that time period.

Which doctrine is that? :confused:

 

The Catholic church teaches that Mary lived her life as a virgin, even after Jesus' birth. That when she was taken to heaven, body and soul, she was a virgin still.

 

That's the doctrine I think he's referring to.

The Catholic church teaches that Mary lived her life as a virgin, even after Jesus' birth. That when she was taken to heaven, body and soul, she was a virgin still.

 

That's the doctrine I think he's referring to.

 

:thumb:I thought that was pretty obvious (if you've read the thread).

I wasn't trying to make the two situations seem comparable, just illustrating that we have to look outside of Scripture because Scripture doesn't address every little detail. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong or that we need to come to conclusions that contradict Scripture. And, due to meanings that were lost in translation, Scripture does not specifically define this issue.

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "brothers" of the Lord were NOT full brothers, simply because Joseph was not his biological father. At the very most they could be half-brothers, step-brothers, or adopted brothers. Due to reports outside of Scripture, the beliefs of early Church fathers, AND Bible passages (that I've cited), I don't think that they were half-brothers through Mary, rather, that they were either cousins, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, or simply being referred to in a broad sense of brotherhood.

 

 

 

Are you referring in the above to the Protoevangelium of James? This "early church writing" does date to about 150 AD according to many scholars, however the early church did not make this text "canon." If this was truly the belief of the early church, wouldn't they want to make it scripture if this was an early tenent of the infant church?

 

BTW, the "Gospel of James" (same as above) proposes this theological construct: Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. (In a nutshell)

 

Here's a wickipedia thumbnail of the work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

 

Which begs another question about this consecration of Mary to God. Was this known by Joseph from the beginning and hence that is why he takes her as his wife? If that is true, why does he believe that she has become with child by some nefarious means and seeks a divorce from her during the betrothal period? (see the Gospels)

I was looking for what other early church fathers had to say (a point raised on this thread as important to the discussion).

 

 

Tertullian advocated the virgnity of Mary but not perpetually so:

 

Tertullian (155/160-240/250) was born in Carthage. He affirms Mary's virginal conception of Jesus:

 

Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation.22

 

Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth. He also considered the "brothers and sisters" to be blood brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

Please take the time to look over this article: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/virofmary.htm

 

There is a lot of pro and con on the argument on this page and most all of the pro tends to go from a Catholic perspective. (Very, Very heavy from a Catholic perspective)

 

I found it an interesting observation that after the publication of "Gospel of James" that many later Church fathers (Origen, Athanasius, St. Ambrose, et al) pick up the debate on her perpetual virginity and agree.

 

However Tertullian (see above), does not agree and he is a contemporary of the Origen era.

 

I wonder how much the early heresies had to do with the making of this doctrinal stance.

 

In the book: Mary in the New Testament, a group of Lutheran and Catholic scholars came to these conclusions regarding this issue:

 

1.The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.

2.Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the "brothers" (and "sisters") to Jesus.

3.Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

4.The solution favoured by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later Church insights and dogmatic definitions, such as that at the Council of Chalcedon.

 

 

I also wonder that with all the references throughout the various parts of the NT to "brothers", etc; Why would they all be so ambigious if they did not clearly mean a brother of some form.

 

I've also wondered why the importance of perpetual virginity for Mary other than making her iconic for believers? I'll try to do some more digging now that I'm back from the Beach. :cry:

Are you referring in the above to the Protoevangelium of James? This "early church writing" does date to about 150 AD according to many scholars, however the early church did not make this text "canon." If this was truly the belief of the early church, wouldn't they want to make it scripture if this was an early tenent of the infant church?

 

BTW, the "Gospel of James" (same as above) proposes this theological construct: Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. (In a nutshell)

 

Here's a wickipedia thumbnail of the work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

 

Which begs another question about this consecration of Mary to God. Was this known by Joseph from the beginning and hence that is why he takes her as his wife? If that is true, why does he believe that she has become with child by some nefarious means and seeks a divorce from her during the betrothal period? (see the Gospels)

 

Good question.

I was looking for what other early church fathers had to say (a point raised on this thread as important to the discussion).

 

 

Tertullian advocated the virgnity of Mary but not perpetually so:

 

Tertullian (155/160-240/250) was born in Carthage. He affirms Mary's virginal conception of Jesus:

 

Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation.22

 

Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth. He also considered the "brothers and sisters" to be blood brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

Please take the time to look over this article: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/virofmary.htm

 

There is a lot of pro and con on the argument on this page and most all of the pro tends to go from a Catholic perspective. (Very, Very heavy from a Catholic perspective)

 

I found it an interesting observation that after the publication of "Gospel of James" that many later Church fathers (Origen, Athanasius, St. Ambrose, et al) pick up the debate on her perpetual virginity and agree.

 

However Tertullian (see above), does not agree and he is a contemporary of the Origen era.

 

I wonder how much the early heresies had to do with the making of this doctrinal stance.

 

In the book: Mary in the New Testament, a group of Lutheran and Catholic scholars came to these conclusions regarding this issue:

 

1.The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.

2.Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the "brothers" (and "sisters") to Jesus.

3.Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

4.The solution favoured by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later Church insights and dogmatic definitions, such as that at the Council of Chalcedon.

 

 

I also wonder that with all the references throughout the various parts of the NT to "brothers", etc; Why would they all be so ambigious if they did not clearly mean a brother of some form.

 

I've also wondered why the importance of perpetual virginity for Mary other than making her iconic for believers? I'll try to do some more digging now that I'm back from the Beach. :cry:

 

Considering the extensive doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Mary, it seems more than just a little odd to me that the actual Bible is virtually silent on the topic.

 

Much of the doctrine was formulated outside of canon, because they can't be proven with scripture. However, what they did was to prove that it wasn't "impossible" based on what scripture did or didn't say. Again, "because its not impossible" based on the scriptures isn't enough for a doctrine...it has to be clearly found in the text for me to be comfortable.

 

But, as always, that goes back to your view of Scripture vs. Tradition and Magisterium.

Considering the extensive doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Mary, it seems more than just a little odd to me that the actual Bible is virtually silent on the topic.

 

Much of the doctrine was formulated outside of canon, because they can't be proven with scripture. However, what they did was to prove that it wasn't "impossible" based on what scripture did or didn't say. Again, "because its not impossible" based on the scriptures isn't enough for a doctrine...it has to be clearly found in the text for me to be comfortable.

 

But, as always, that goes back to your view of Scripture vs. Tradition and Magisterium.

 

 

Ahh, that's the Reformation in our souls, sola scriptura.