Jesus Christ And The Early Christian Church

http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Church.html ^

[Zuriel]

So Elizabeth is a cousin, but the brothers and sisters that Jesus Christ was so vastly superior to, can’t be brothers and sisters. As though that does resume damage to Mary.

Well, if she has to maintain the Diana-Artemis (sp) tradition, then that would explain it to me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Only somebody too gullible to think for themselves what the Scripture says about itself would subscribe to the theory your system proposes."

You set aside argument and content yourself by saying I'm gullible --- and this exempts you from considering my reasons. This kind of response is not an argument: it is just a refusal to evaluate evidence.

Yet the Christian community much closer to Biblical times, including both scholars and people who spoke Hebrew or Greek as their native languages, didn't think it was a stretch at all to say that Jesus' adelphoi (Gr.) were not his siblings born of Mary, but rather that they were half-brothers from His foster-father Joseph, or other close kindred, as the words can indicate in context.

Jesus Himself uses "brethren" is a very wide sense, e.g. in Matthew 25:40.

If you ignore the actual usage, you open yourself to mistaking the specificity of "sons of Mary" where this specificity is not stated or intended. It is just as likely that they were close kinsmen in the Aramaic usage, even sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. A near-universal conviction of Mary's ever-virginity is the documentable belief of the churches of Christ from the earliest recorded evidence.

Jerome (4th century) referred to the theory that Mary had children other than Jesus, as "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world" (Jerome, Against Helvetius, 21). This indicates that Jerome, one of the most eminent scholars and translators of his age, had not heard of such a notion previous to its promotion by Helvetius, and thought it an innovation.

The evidence of this is strong, since all the liturgies of the earliest churches -- not just Roman (the Latin West) but Jerusalemic (Liturgy of St. James), Antiochian, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian, etc --- ALL refer to Mary as Ever-Virgin, which is strong evidence of its going back to the era when these churches were founded, i.e. the Apostolic Era.

The question doesn't even arise again until 1000 years later.

But here's a challenge for you. Any specific counter examples -— especially anybody from before Jerome's time who debated Mary's ever-virginity or asserted that Jesus' brethren in the NT were sons of Mary, or anything like a public liturgical reference to Mary’s purported other children -— would be telling evidence against Mary's "ever-virginity."

Does any such evidence exist? Anywhere? At any time? in the first millennium-and--a-half of Christianity?

Thanks.

[imardmd1]

With all due respect, this is not the issue that I was addressing. But for the matter I was commenting on, there were solid Scriptural foundations.

[BipolarBob]

I don't see why any Protestant would care about what Jerome wrote except for a historical curiosity only. Certainly not for a doctrinal lesson. He was a protege of Pope Damasus 1. So his theory about other peoples theories carries as much weight as a warm spoon of spittle.

As far as debates over Marys perpetual virginity in ancient times would be impossible to tell. They probably didn't give such a ridiculous notion any thought. It wasn't until Catholics sought to elevate her status to demi-goddess that the Mary myths started manifesting itself.

[bar sin·is·ter]

Many cultures refer to cousins as brothers and sisters, why is that so hard to grasp?

If we refer to each other as brothers ans sisters in Christ does it mean I have to send you a birthday card every year?

[CptnObvious]

Bad Hermeneutics.

[CptnObvious]

Bad Hermeneutics.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The reasons why a lot of Protestant do care --- and all ought to care --- about Jerome, are twofold:

(1) his influence on the development of the Canon, which is always an ecclesial, not an individual, determination; and

(2)his evidence of what the faithful believed in the early centuries of Christianity.

Your guess about the background of this belief is exactly wrong, historically speaking. The belief in the ever-virginity of Mary was the older universal belief; and the notion that she gave birth to other children was, at Jerome's time (fourth century) a shocking innovation.

And it’s not just the Roman church, if by that you mean the Latin West. Mary is honored as Ever-Virgin in all the earliest Apostolic patriarchal churches -— Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria -— as well as churches historically more independent of their direct influence, such as the Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic and Ethiopian churches.

These held the doctrine of "ever-virginity" centuries before the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which finally officially defined it as a doctrine. The 3th century Armenians, for instance, who were not even part of the Roman Empire, did not adopt this doctrine "because" a council in Cobstantinople(which they did not attend) defined it officially in the 7th century. Think.

In fact, the broader geographically, and deeper historically you go, the more it looks like “Ever-Virgin” is the authentic belief from the Apostolic Era, and divergence from that was an innovation. An unpersuasive one, too. It didn’t get any traction with any Christian churches anywhere, Roman or not. After Jerome refuted Helvetius' "innovation," controversy didn't arise again until millennium later.

It is pretty enlightening to look into the history, which is a rich field for the action of Divine Providence.

[bar sin·is·ter]

Bad argumentation.

[BipolarBob]

I'm not convinced.
IF this was so important then it was pretty negligent of God and the Apostles to leave it out of Scripture. Apostasy crept into the Church early on. People vying for position. For importance. Paganism was melded into beliefs. Human reasoning led them instead of Scripture. Out of this pseudo-Christianity developed Catholicism.
Small pockets of believers kept the faith but were always under harassment. Then God sent Luther to lead people back to His Word! We must square our beliefs with Gods Word for that is the only sure Compass.

[RegulatorCountry]

You forgot the ™.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think the reason so many polemicists are unconvinced by -— and even frankly uninterested in -— historic evidence, is that they think the promises of Christ failed and the Church in all Christian nations wandered abandoned for 1500 years. Then the Holy Spirit woke up to enlighten certain celebrity German theologians who wanted to break their vows and cut books out of the Bible.

You can perhaps see why I’m not convinced.

[ravenwolf]

Convince us that James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon were not his Step-Brothers through Mary and that he at least had two Step-Sisters also by Mary according to this verse.

---

Step brothers and sisters are not related, if they were step brothers they must have been Joseph`s children by a former wife.

John 19
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.

27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

If Mary had other children this would make no sense at all.

Also notice.
40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:

Mary was the wife of Cleopas who was the father of Joses and James.

These two were called Jesus`s brethren but it is plain they had a different mother and father.

There are many scriptures which show that the brethren of Jesus show no belief in him, that would be the attitude of older brethren not younger.

I see no absolute proof either way but the scriptures indicate to me that Jesus was Mary`s only child.

[BipolarBob]

If Mary had other children this would make no sense at all.

Actually it makes perfect sense. John was the Disciple closest to Jesus. He was the one that could be entrusted to His final familial duty. At this time there is no indication that any of Jesus' step brothers or sisters were followers of Him. Jesus had the ability to perceive the future and make this decision.

I see no absolute proof either way . . .

But you want to believe that the virgin Mary stayed a virgin? Correct?

[BipolarBob]

is that they think the promises of Christ failed
On the contrary. Did you not read my "Small pockets of believers kept the faith but were always under harassment."? God always has His faithful but they are not always so obvious or ostentatious. As time goes on they will become more noticeable and important.

[CptnObvious]

But you want to believe that the virgin Mary stayed a virgin?

Can't believe that since his step-brothers names were James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon and he had at least two sisters. And the Jews were criticizing him through his family (context) in the same verse.

The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

[BipolarBob]

Thanks for the reply CptnObvious. It was obvious I was posting to ravenwolf and you were courtesy pinged.

[imardmd1]

If I introduce you to my sister, how hard is it to believe that she's not just somebody I go to church with. Does this need more explanation? The Scripture explains itself and is very definite. When the writer Matthew described Mary and her other children, find out a genuine reason that they should not be brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Make it consistent with context and with the overall theme of the Bible.

[imardmd1]

The belief in the ever-virginity of Mary was the older universal belief; and the notion that she gave birth to other children was, at Jerome's time (fourth century) a shocking innovation.

At Jesus' time when he appeared to be just another man--albeit and unusual one--that she did not give birth to other children would have been a shocking innovation. If she hadn't, and being so fundamental to doctrine, the Scriptures would have shown that she hadn't.

But, let's face it--it doesn't. To the contrary, it clearly says that she did, and other Scripture supports the idea the the general epistle of James (Iakob) and the letter of Jude were written by two of His brothers.

[Zuriel]

How much more plain can it be?......

God gave his ONLY begotten Son.

Joseph ‘knew’ not his wife until she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son.

The argument that only older brothers would look down on Jesus is a weak one.

Extreme example: Children came out to mock Elisha ( which worked out pretty bad for the kids.)

Moses was 80 yrs old when he led Israel out of Egypt. A whole lot of folks didn’t have the respect they should have had for him. Of the 12 spies, only Caleb and Joshua showed respect to Moses (who was the prophet of God).

Samuel’s sons were not faithful like their father.

David had a son that sought to take his kingdom and his life.

Rehoboam and his young advisors wouldn’t listen to the older experienced men.