Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Mary's Virginity & Jesus's Siblings Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 90 03:48:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 163 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ons regarding Mary's virginity and Jesus' siblings are very perplexing, but before they run their course may I please add a few words: There can be no rational doubt that Jesus had at least two sisters and four brothers------- Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3 ...is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, Joses, Simon, Judas? And his sisters...(i.e. "Hey folks, we all know the whole family"...presumably Joseph having passed on...) Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19 ...mother and brethren...without Jn 2:12 ...mother, brethren, and DISCIPLES (His brothers couldn't have been all bad...being included with the disciples...but no sibling seems to have been present at the crucifiction...they couldn't endure to the end? Must have stressed Mary greatly not to have had her other children with her for support.) Acts 1:14 ...but they were back with her after the resurection (like many of us ...teetering...) Gal 1:19, 1Cor 15:7 ... and at least one, James, repented, probably after having been visited by Jesus himself (as was Saul) and who later rose to a position of leadership in Jerusalem and subsequently was ordained an apostle (following the pattern of filling the position left by a deceased apostle (as Mathias replaced the fallen Judas) to keep the prescribed leadership intact.) These siblings were not COUSINS or they would have been referred to as such (as was John the Baptist, who was the son of Mary's COUSIN Elizabeth. That would make John and Jesus at least 2nd cousins and probably once or twice removed considering the great age difference between Elizabeth and Mary and their divergent geneologies). They were not his 'spiritual' siblings either. (Note that none/most of them did not accept him as the Redeemer until after his resurection.) They surely were not Joseph's children by a previous marriage either, or else they would have been mentioned during the trip to Bethlehem and on to Egypt. (They were clearly not left with a divorced wife nor with his family, who did seemed not to approve of the marriage.) Yes, there are enormous gaps in the story of the first two yea thirty years of Jesus' life, but surely SOME mention would have been made of any step children at some point. (There is no absolute proof here only rational thought.) However and most importantly, THERE IS NO REASON that Jesus shouldn't have had siblings! Joseph would have wanted children of his own with Mary. And Mary too would have wanted more than one child as any normal Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish wife would have wanted. The story says that a virgin would conceive and the issue would be the Christ/Savior/Lord. It DOES NOT SAY that Mary would be virgin AFTER conception! So what is the problem here??? Let me guess.... S___E___X. As if it were somehow tainting. And just who said that marital sex was tainting? Not the scriptures: NOWHERE in the OT is such an idea found. Infact A&E were COMMANDED to have sex. (Unless someone has a suggestion how to procreate without it -- to multiply and replentish.) Only extramarital sex is condemned in the OT. Neither the Ten Commandments nor the Law even hint that marital sex be anything but incouraged for procreation and familial harmony. Likewise in the NT: Only Paul is begrudging of marriage. He nevertheless approves of it and of course the natural sexual companionship which accompanies it. (Note that Paul, when he spoke of this, despite the quantity of his writings found in the NT, was not a high ranking officer of the Church. And no other officer of the Church decries marital intercourse.) Likely the reason that there is so little commentary on the subject is that marital sex WAS NOT AN ISSUE then. The problem arose much later........ So how did the problem arise??? Well, if not initiated by Augustine, it clearly was magnified by him. In his youth he couldn't keep his pants on. He sinned abundantly. In his attempts at repentance, he came to feel that he was evil. He was evil mostly because he indulged in premarital sex and was now addicted to it. Therefore, concluded he, all sex is evil. He also concluded that sex in the Garden of Eden was evil -- and sex then was the 'original sin'. Eve tempted Adam to have sex so it was really her fault. Ah, then!! It is the temptation of men by women that is the root of this issue. Women are therefore the evil ones and, thus, Agustine was of the hook -- just an innocent bystander shall we say. Of course there is no basis for any of this in the scriptures; in fact the assertion that sex was the original sin doesn't make any sense at all. 'Original sin' comes from having EATEN the fruit of some strange tree, which apparently changed A&E's biological structure so that aging ensued and also gave them (and their offspring) the ability to discern 'good' from 'evil'. FURTHER, Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind INCLUDING THE TRESPASSES OF ADAM AND EVE, thus there is no longer any original sin in effect. That is why we will all resurrect! That is why the dead had to wait in their graves until Jesus resurrected...and THEN they 'rose from the dead'. That is why we call Jesus 'Lord, Reedemer, Savior'. From here it gets more complicated: Augustine reasoned that if Jesus was good. It follows then that Mary was good. If sex is bad and Mary is good, then she didn't have sex ---- EVER. Further, if Jesus was good and Mary (Jesus' mother) was good, then Mary's MOTHER needs to have been good. Hence Mary's mother didn't have sex EITHER. Despite the fact that Mary had at least one sibling -- a sister (Jn 19:25). Etc. No comment was made about Mary's greatgrandmother, etc. (There is no attempt to find any logic here; all of this came from Augustine's attempt to find repentance for his continuing addiction to sex, which began in his youth. For my part, there is no need to invoke 'immaculate' conception for anyone -- Jesus, Mary, her mother, or Ruth for that matter. 'Immaculate' conception implies that other conceptions are not 'immaculate' -- somehow tainted, sinful, evil. It is clear to me that the word 'immaculate' is not only extrascriptorial it is misleading. We further note that Joseph 'knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her FIRSTborn son.' After which they presumably lived as a normal happily married couple, except for an uncomfortable sidetrip/honeymoon(?) to Egypt. Procreation is the sharing of the creation mirracle with God. And when it is shared also with a dearly beloved spouse, it seems to me to be the most holy practice accesable to mortals. (Could this be why the Lord considers adultery so sinful?) Certainly to suggest that the conceiving of beautiful little babies in such a relationship is not immaculate is insulting to both the parents and to God. I further see no reason to believe that Jesus was not conceived in the same manner as other people. I don't know that Joseph was very happy about it, but he wasn't the first nor the last to marry a woman who was carrying another man's child (albeit one fathered by God). He must have loved Mary deeply, he guarded the little family, built a home, and cared for Mary and their children. They together bore some six more children and spent at least the next twelve years (ten or so if one counts from the return from Egypt happily together (after which Joseph is curiously not mentioned). They doubtless struggled together to be righteous and to earn there own salvation the same way that all of us must struggle to find our salvation with our own families -- including the passing of children, mates, and other loved ones. ========================================================================= ========================================================================= [I fear that your comments are a bit stronger than are warranted by the evidence. There are in fact cases where the word "brothers" is used in the Bible figurative or with a wider context than simple biological brothers. Thus you cannot say that there is no rational doubt. I certainly do not find the Catholic interpretations of these passages credible, but to say that they are irrational seems to be carrying things too far. The positive valuation of virginity was established in the Church well before Augustine. Indeed Augustine was inspired in his decision to give up marriage by the example of Antony. I have mixed feelings about whether the special role of virginity in the Catholic tradition indicates a negative view of sex. Catholics generally say it does not. They point to the fact that, unlike Protestants, Catholics see marriage as a sacrament. Sexual union is symbolic of the union between Christ and the Church, and can form a channel for God's grace to encounter us. One can admire the discipline of the ascetics without deprecating the value of Christian marriage. As Charles Williams points out throughout his history of church ("The Descent of the Dove"), Christian tradition has always included two approaches: the way of affirmation of images and the way of rejection of images. Like most Protestants, I have an instinctive suspicion of the way of rejection. But it should be possible to see both virginity and marriage as ways of serving God. Note by the way that Augustine did not consider sex in itself as evil. In the City of God he describes sex as part of the idyllic state that God intended for men. Sex was corrupted by sin, as everything else is corrupted by sin. It is evil only because it is mixed with lust. --clh]