Did Jesus have siblings?

[vle045]

Did Mary & Jospeh have any kids after Jesus?

I thought that I learned somewhere that they did. But the Catholic Church says they did not.

What do Methodists teach?

[kelco]

Yes Jesus did have brothers and sisters. Here are some scriptures that support it:

Mat 12:47 Someone told him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." (NRSV)

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?" (NRSV)


Luk 8:19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
Luk 8:20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." (NRSV)

Joh 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days. (NRSV)

[Moodshadow]

I don't know that I've ever heard an official Methodist teaching on this, but it plainly states in the NT that Jesus had brothers, as cited in the above post. They were undoubtedly the sons of Mary and Joseph, and so technically they were his half-brothers - but hey, brothers are brothers.

[Redheadedstepchild]

I heard or read somewhere recently that Joseph already had sons when he married Mary and that he and Mary never had children together (which is odd to me because I always imagined Jesus as the eldest).

[GraceSeeker]

Did Mary & Jospeh have any kids after Jesus?

I thought that I learned somewhere that they did. But the Catholic Church says they did not.

What do Methodists teach?

United Methodists do NOT have any "official" teaching one way or the other. Just like we don't have any "official" teaching on the name of the town where Jesus was born. What we do is ask people to read the teachings contained in the Old and New Testaments and find them all that is necessary for salvation and to be a sufficient guide for both faith and practice.

In my understanding of those readings, YES, it does appear to me that Jesus did have half-siblings. I understand that the teaching of the Catholic church is that Jesus' closest relatives were cousins, and that those places where it appears the Bible is talking about siblings they really are referring to are these other relatives or using the term "brother" like we do today in the sense of fellowship in the church. Personally, I think the arguements require quite a few linguistic gymnastics to get there. Or as in the above post, rely on traditions that are outside of the Bible. But Catholics value their oral tradition that much.

[Speculative]

John Wesley believed in the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, so, this would teach that Mary had no other children.

[GraceSeeker]

John Wesley believed in the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, so, this would teach that Mary had no other children.

Did he really? I didn't know that. You are right that the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity (of Mary) teaches that Mary had no other children. Of course John Wesley wasn't a United Methodist; he was a priest of the Church of England. Maybe that is an Anglican doctrine, not just a Catholic one? I don't know. I do know that I don't believe everything that Welsey believed. Did you know that he taught that rubbing an onion on your head would cure baldness?

[Kristen.NewCreation]

I heard or read somewhere recently that Joseph already had sons when he married Mary and that he and Mary never had children together (which is odd to me because I always imagined Jesus as the eldest).
I did as well. I grew up learning that Jesus had brothers, so this is the first I've heard much of this discussion. However, I grew up SDA, so I didn't grow up with Wesley.

[Speculative]

Did he really? I didn't know that. You are right that the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity (of Mary) teaches that Mary had no other children. Of course John Wesley wasn't a United Methodist; he was a priest of the Church of England. Maybe that is an Anglican doctrine, not just a Catholic one? I don't know. I do know that I don't believe everything that Welsey believed. Did you know that he taught that rubbing an onion on your head would cure baldness?
Well, I'm certainly no expert in Mariology, but I do know that Wesley, Luther, and (most remarkably, to me) Calvin believed in this doctrine. It leads me to believe that it's denial is probably a relatively recent event. I know there are some discussions on Catholicsource, and ccel on this that give some justifications based on the usual scripture references used to refute the doctrine.

I don't march in lockstep with Wesley, either, and I guess I'm in the "I don't really know" in the PV arena, but I think I'm going to try that onion thing :D

[MoeSzyslak]

I agree with Speculative. Belief in the perpetual virginity can be found in the writings of Calvin, Luther,Zwingli, etc.. In addition the concensus of the early church writers, such as Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Basil, etc, was also in support of the perpetual virginity. But there we're some early writings that did speak about Jesus's brothers, such as those of Tertullian, (can't remember the other one on the tip of my tongue?)

My two cents though. It doesn't really matter either way. It really has nothing to do with my faith in Christ or the salvation plan. There is one mediator between man and God.

Not sure why it really matters?:scratch:

[Moodshadow]

Do those who believe in perpetual virginity do so because there is scriptural support for it, and if so, where are those scriptures? Throughout history there have always been those who have believed that sex is an evil thing, even within marriage, and/or that it is not to be discussed or even hinted at in conversation or writings. Pregnant women kept themselves in confinement as soon as their condition was obvious because it was a "delicate" matter. Maybe some of this mindset influenced these early theologians to such an extent that they felt a need to deify Mary in that way and would not allow her to be thought of in a normal human context? I dunno - just guessing, here.

[vle045]

I never really gave it much thought until I stumbled into a discussion over it. And never really would have thought it was a big deal one way or the other. But since I have been trying to learn about my own religious upbringing... and about the Catholic portion that was missing, so many things have been brought to my attention.

With this whole thing about Mary having other children... if I am sitting in a Catholic setting, they say no way - no how. She offered up her virginity to God as her sacrifice for being chosen. Joseph married her to take care of her and Jesus... and not for the sexual aspect of marriage. Which puzzles me because they also teach that a big reason for marriage is the procreation of children.

So then after hearing that... I crack open my (new) Life Application Bible that has tons of extra info and profiles on people in the Bible. For Mary, they list her vitals as including several other children.

Catholics say that it's a misinterpretation of a word that could mean brothers or cousins.

Oy! So is it possible that there is a real geneological study that can absolutely tell us one way or another?

Sure, it's probably not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. It is certainly not something I would have come up with on my own. But when you are trying to figure out who you want to believe, things like that can help figure that out.

But from my point of view, when the angel came down and told Mary she'd have a son and she'd name him Jesus.... I don't recall him saying, but only if you abstain from marital sex for the rest of your life.

[GraceSeeker]

I never really gave it much thought until I stumbled into a discussion over it. And I never did growing up in a Methodist setting either. In fact, I don't remember ever hearing about Jesus' brothers until I was in a college Bible study. But it wasn't that it was believed that he didn't have them, it was just that no one really cared that much about Jesus' family accept to think of Mary and Joseph at Christmas.

You know if it is true that Joseph had other children before Jesus from a previous marriage, I wonder where they were when Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register? They would have been of the house of David too, so even if they were adults they would have had to have gone there as well.


But from my point of view, when the angel came down and told Mary she'd have a son and she'd name him Jesus.... I don't recall him saying, but only if you abstain from marital sex for the rest of your life. That's the way I read the story too. Even when I try to read it from a Catholic perspective, that's what I see, but they sure do end up a different place than I do.

From The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic CAtechism for Adults:The truth that Mary remained a perpetual virgin throughout her entire life is also a dogma of the faith taught in the Church from very early times. It provides a good example of the way in which the Church's understanding of Christian doctrine develops through liturgical celebration and catechesis as well as through formal statements of the ordinary magisterium.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not a reveal truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition. But what is implicit in the Scriptures concerning this dogma gradually came to light in the Church's faith-consciousness. Thus , in the fourth century "ever-virgin" became a popular title for Mary. The Church has steadfastly believed that Mary remained true to God in the intense fevor of her virginal love. By the miracle of her virginal conception He had enabled her to be both virgin and mother; and the constant witness of faith to her title "virgin" is a proclaimer of faith that she guarded His gift always.

[emphases mine]


The Catholic church actually teaches that not only was Mary a virgin with regard to Jesus' conception and remain a virgin the rest of her life, but that even with regard to Jesus' birth, "Mary gave birth to Jesus in a virginal way." She brought him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived Him without the loss of virginity...it was a miraculous birth.

Pope St. Leo I, Letter to Flavian, June 13, 449



Why is this such a big deal? The Catholic Church perceives Mary's virginity as a part of God's plan of redemption. Now, for myself, even granting that perhaps her virginity helps us to accept the divine nature of Jesus as God incarnate, I don't see how her perpetual virginity enhances that, but Catholics do. Again from the Catholic Catechism:The Fathers and saints have often spoken of the reasons why God wished the mother of Jesus to be a virgin forever. In this, as in all mysteries of faith, it is right for one reverently to seek an insight into the appropriateness of God's mighty deeds. We have already suggested that Mary's virginal conception is a fitting witness to the divine transendence of her Child who has no human father, since God alone is His Father. At the same time, the virginal Theotoko gives testimony to His real immanence in the Incarnation: He truly assumed His human flesh from her. Mary's virginity also has an ecclesial and eschatological significance. For, metaphorically speaking, the Church is a virgin mother who brings forth the adopted brothers and sisters of Christ through her ministry of the Word and sacraments. Moreover, Mary is the model for those who choose chastity as priests or religious; she inspires them to bear witness to the ultimate meaning and final goal, or eschaton, of salvation history, the heavenly city where there will be no marriage.



Another Catholic apologist, Anthony Wilhem, writing to a Catholic audience in his book, Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith, has written:Her [Mary's] unique relations with the Spirit sets her in such close proximity to God that she must remain alone in order to our eyes this unique choice of her Lord.... Her virginity appears at one and the same time as a sign of consecration and a sign of solitary powerlessness which gives glory to the fulness and power of God...a sign of poverty, of humility, and of waiting on God...a sign of emptiness and total trust in God who makes rich such poor creatures as we are.






However, Mary's virginity should be seen as more than mere physical inviolability. For many today whether Mary is or is not physically a virgin is of small consequence; they see her virginity as symbolizing something far greater, her profound attitude of total openness to God alone, her total consecration of herself to him before anyone and anything else--and in this each of us, virginial or not, has the power to imitate her.



As we shall see, Mary is a figure of the Church, and her virginity is a prophetic sign of the Church's ideal purity and total dedication to Christ. She is the ideal Christian, totally given only to God.




But from my point of view, when the angel came down and told Mary she'd have a son and she'd name him Jesus.... I don't recall him saying, but only if you abstain from marital sex for the rest of your life. For myself, I think you are a better theologian, than all the wisdom of centuries of Catholic theology on this matter. That they have taken what for some 4th century men was an idealized view of women in their own desired roles for them as either mothers of children or virginal and chaste and then created the myth around Mary and subsequently imputed to it all manner of theologies that the Catechism itself recognizes "is not a reveal truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament." But they wanted to protect the myth and thus have made it one of the bedrocks of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether Mary did or did not remain a virgin isn't really important to me. But that it should be seen as a fundamental of the teachings of the Catholic Church and be so vehemently defended I see as pure lunacy. I like the credo, "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity"; this is NOT an essential, and I think the Catholic Church is wrong to pretend that it is.

[tz620q]

I do know that I don't believe everything that Welsey believed. Did you know that he taught that rubbing an onion on your head would cure baldness?

IT DOESN'T!!! :eek: :cry:

[vle045]

Thanks GS for that very thorough and well thought out response. I think that you presented a fair assessment while also including your own thoughts.

When I break it (the Catholic teaching on this) down to my level of understanding, it simplay says, this is true because we say so and we want it to be true. And I get that feeling a lot.

And it's not really just about this one thing. It's more of a small piece of a giant puzzle for me.

[cristianna]

When I break it (the Catholic teaching on this) down to my level of understanding, it simplay says, this is true because we say so and we want it to be true. And I get that feeling a lot.

Me too, me too.

[tz620q]

From The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic CAtechism for Adults:

The Catholic church actually teaches that not only was Mary a virgin with regard to Jesus' conception and remain a virgin the rest of her life, but that even with regard to Jesus' birth, "Mary gave birth to Jesus in a virginal way."


Though this seems to be a well written compendium of the Catholic faith, it has never been an official Cathecism, more like a rewritten version for the masses. The current official Cathecism was released in 1993 and has a somewhat similar quote in it from paragraph 499.

In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."

To get a better feel for this sort of language, one must realize that in First Century Judea, giving birth to a boy was supposed to make the mother legally impure for forty days. This was why they would go to get Jesus circumsized and Mary "purified".

Luke 2:21-24
21 When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord," 24 and to offer the sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons," in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

[Moodshadow]

Call me crazy, but I believe that God made us sexual beings for a very good reason: to perpetuate the species. The idea of sexual purity seems important to Him, given the commandments against adultery and fornication, but sexual relations within marriage has never been condemned in the scriptures - at least to my knowledge. It would have been very unnatural for Joseph and Mary not to have been a normal married couple in that respect. Before they were married, the angel told Joseph not to fear to take Mary as his wife. Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) says: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name JESUS." To me that implies that they did consummate their marriage, but not until after Jesus was born. There is no reason I can see to believe that she was a "perpetual virgin."

[Speculative]

When I break it (the Catholic teaching on this) down to my level of understanding, it simplay says, this is true because we say so and we want it to be true. And I get that feeling a lot.
Well, that's not just a Catholic thing--that kind of thinking is quite popular in Christianity. I think it's good to discuss and contemplate stuff like this as long as we don't divide over it.

[cristianna]

Call me crazy, but I believe that God made us sexual beings for a very good reason: to perpetuate the species. The idea of sexual purity seems important to Him, given the commandments against adultery and fornication, but sexual relations within marriage has never been condemned in the scriptures - at least to my knowledge. It would have been very unnatural for Joseph and Mary not to have been a normal married couple in that respect. Before they were married, the angel told Joseph not to fear to take Mary as his wife. Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) says: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name JESUS." To me that implies that they did consummate their marriage, but not until after Jesus was born. There is no reason I can see to believe that she was a "perpetual virgin."

I have to completely agree here with every bit that has been written. :thumbsup:

And I also agree with you Speculative. :thumbsup:

[dayhiker]

I'm in agreement with those that don't se any evidence that Mary was prepetual virgin. This was a doctrine that developed centuries into church history. This type of idea was more of a Stoic idea that a Jewish idea. If one reads Jewish ideas, a husband was suppose to have sex with his wife and see that she enjoyed it. The Talmud even lists how many times a week a husband was to have sex with this wife. It was dependent on how much time he had on his hands. A husband without a job should have sex with his wife at least 5 times a week. A many who worked on a traveling carivan was have sex with his wife at least one a month. My reading of history is that since Mary and Joseph were Jews they would have seen it their responcibility to have sex. The Catholic Church brought Stoic ideas into their theology and made virginity way more important and for differnt reasons that the Jews had.

dayhiker

[zoziw]

Sure, it's probably not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. It is certainly not something I would have come up with on my own. But when you are trying to figure out who you want to believe, things like that can help figure that out.


Pretty much everyone I know, including myself, favours the idea that Jesus had real brothers and sisters based on the previously listed Bible verses.

However, whether Mary remained a virgin all of her life doesn't have any impact on my beliefs or theology and I certainly would not begrudge someone who held to the view that these passages were referring to cousins or other relatives.

[MoeSzyslak]

This type of idea was more of a Stoic idea that a Jewish idea.

This is exactly what it is. The earliest mention I can find of Mary's perpetual virginity comes from a writing called the "Protevangelium of James." Most scholars date this around 150AD. Then shortly thereafter, some Christian writers seem to pick up on the idea. The Protevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. The Gnostics essentially tried to combine Christianity with Greek Stoicism. The particular flavor of Gnosticism behind the Protevangelium was Docetism. Docetism essentially denied that Jesus became man. They believed he was some kind of embodied spirit that lived on the earth. In section 19 of the Protevangelium, it states that Mary did not give birth to Jesus. Instead, a light flooded the room and then when it dissipated, Jesus was there as a baby and went to Mary to nurse. Then it mentions Mary's virginity. So the Docetist seemed to invent the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity as a defense to their belief of Jesus as an embodied spirit. If Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus have been a human??

It seems silly to me that someone would reject all the heretical beliefs and writings of the gnostic heretics, but keep, latch on, and make this one item a doctrine of faith?

But as others have said, if someone choses to believe the perpetual virginity, it's fine with me. To quote Graceseeker, "It is not an essential".

[GraceSeeker]

Though this [The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic CAtechism for Adults] seems to be a well written compendium of the Catholic faith, it has never been an official Cathecism, more like a rewritten version for the masses.

Thank you for the correction. Do you have a link to where I might access the official Cathecism online?

[tz620q]

Thank you for the correction. Do you have a link to where I might access the official Cathecism online?
I usually get to the Catechism via the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website at

http://www.usccb.org/index.shtml

[silentpoet]

The bible said He had siblings, so yes He had siblings. You don't have to make it that complicated.One show I saw said that linguistically it looks like two of the brothers of Jesus may be from an earlier marriage that Joseph may have had and that the other two may be from Mary and Joseph together.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

The bible said He had siblings, so yes He had siblings. You don't have to make it that complicated.One show I saw said that linguistically it looks like two of the brothers of Jesus may be from an earlier marriage that Joseph may have had and that the other two may be from Mary and Joseph together.
But they may ALL be sons of Joseph. Keep in mind that Joseph was 40 and Mary was 13 when they married. I grew up Catholic and i tend to believe this teaching that the brothers of Jesus are Josephs sons from his previous marriage. Alot of what the Catholic church teaches isnt from the Bible but from oral and written tradition. There were lots of other writings they get information from. As far as Mary and Joseph not having sex, it really wasn't an unusual thing back then like it would be now. It was alot more common for people to taks such vows even married people. Seeing this situation through the eyes of our modern days..ya it seems impossible..but understanding the culture and ways back then..it really isn't odd. Just some food for thought.

oh..and here is a good reason for Mary and Joseph not having more children, its because of the bloodline of Jesus. Think about say for example the DaVinci Code and the claims of the Knights Templar. They claim Jesus had children and if he did there would be his bloodline running around today in human form. Well same as if Mary had other children, they would be of the same parent as God himself. To ME it makes sense God didn't think it a good idea.

[GraceSeeker]

But they may ALL be sons of Joseph. Keep in mind that Joseph was 40 and Mary was 13 when they married. I grew up Catholic and i tend to believe this teaching that the brothers of Jesus are Josephs sons from his previous marriage. Alot of what the Catholic church teaches isnt from the Bible but from oral and written tradition. There were lots of other writings they get information from. As far as Mary and Joseph not having sex, it really wasn't an unusual thing back then like it would be now. It was alot more common for people to taks such vows even married people. Seeing this situation through the eyes of our modern days..ya it seems impossible..but understanding the culture and ways back then..it really isn't odd. Just some food for thought.

oh..and here is a good reason for Mary and Joseph not having more children, its because of the bloodline of Jesus. Think about say for example the DaVinci Code and the claims of the Knights Templar. They claim Jesus had children and if he did there would be his bloodline running around today in human form. Well same as if Mary had other children, they would be of the same parent as God himself. To ME it makes sense God didn't think it a good idea.


LOL.
Yeah, I can see the latent Catholic teaching coming out. But, if that's what you were raised with, I'm not surprised that you still believe at least some of it, maybe most of it.

Sorry, but none of that makes sense to me. First off I don't know how anyone today can say how old either Joseph or Mary was. I say Joseph was 28 and Mary 15. And I think I have just about as much chance proving that and any other age someone might have chosen. As for tradition, well, I've been saying that for several years and written it down a few times before. There you have it -- both oral and written tradition. And I see absolutely no problem with Jesus having half-brothers and sisters, nieces, nephews, and all sorts of cousins running around sharing some of the same genes as he had. As far as bloodlines go, genetically, a cousin like John would be just as closely related as a half-sibling who was the child of both Mary and Joseph.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

GS,
As far as the ages of Joseph and Mary when they got married it is in some early writings for the church from the Early Church Fathers i believe. Or it may be from some other gnostic writings. So..no i won't bet my life on their ages..but i just wanted to show where the idea came from is all.
I just grew up with the idea that Joseph was previously married and had children from that marriage who are Jesus' brothers and that the church had early early writings to show these things. i suppose if i went to the Catholic forum they would tell me which writings these are. i seen them before and can't remember.
i am just giving food for thought. i dont even know if this is all accurate. i just never had any reason to doubt its truth.

[Speculative]

I think RedTulipMoon brings up some good points. Of course we can't prove this one way or the other, but the fact that so many giants of the Christian faith believed in PV makes it hard for me to dismiss it out of hand.

[silentpoet]

Here is a verse that does not support the perpetual virginity view.

Matthew 1:25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
It is speaking of Joseph.

I tend to not believe something the Roman Catholic church says unless I can verify it with the bible.

[Speculative]

Well, as Wesleyans, perhaps we should consider what John Wesley had to say about this verse.

He knew her not, till after she had brought forth - It cannot be inferred from hence, that he knew her afterward: no more than it can be inferred from that expression, 2 Sam. vi, 23 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iiSam.6.html#iiSam.6.23), Michal had no child till the day of her death, that she had children afterward. Nor do the words that follow, the first-born son, alter the case. For there are abundance of places, wherein the term first born is used, though there were no subsequent children. Luke ii, 7 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.Luke.2.html#Luke.2.7).

Agree with him or not, but Wesley knew the Biblical objections to PV and he still supported it. And he CERTAINLY didn't blindly follow the Catholic church.

I'm not trying to defend the doctrine. I'm just saying that it is not as easily dismissed as it may seem.

[silentpoet]

There is more support for Jesus having siblings and Mary not being a perpetual virgin than one verse. It is fairly easily dismissed by me because the support for it is weak.

[Speculative]

Wesley has read all the verses you claim support your view. So did Calvin. So did Luther. The doctrine was believed in Christianity since well before the council of Nicaea and the vast majority of Christians today belong to churches that profess this doctrine after careful consideration of Mt 12:46, Mt 28:10, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 2:12, and any other verses you might produce.

Now, you may believe this support is weak, but if you do, I would submit that you have a unique standard of support that is not altogether consistent with Wesleyanism.

[GraceSeeker]

Now, you may believe this support is weak, but if you do, I would submit that you have a unique standard of support that is not altogether consistent with Wesleyanism.

Not everything that Wesley did was consistent with Wesleyanism. On the one hand he most certainly taught baptism of infants, as did the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Luther, and Calvin. And he taught it as having regenerational effect. Yet he could and would turn right around and say that baptism itself effects nothing with regard to salvation absent faith.

[Speculative]

Not everything that Wesley did was consistent with Wesleyanism. On the one hand he most certainly taught baptism of infants, as did the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Luther, and Calvin. And he taught it as having regenerational effect. Yet he could and would turn right around and say that baptism itself effects nothing with regard to salvation absent faith.
True--and I find some of his statements regarding Christian perfection contradictory as well.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't think Wesley, most Wesleyans, Methodists, or very many Christians throughout history would categorize close to 2000 years of Church history in support of a particular doctrine as "weak".

Intuitively, and based on my own reading of scripture, I would tend to agree with you guys and reject PV. However, the tradition of the church, and notable church leaders who wanted nothing to do with Rome leads me to reconsider. I just don't think it's right to suggest that Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and millions of other Christians missed this one because they simply didn't know their Bible.

[GraceSeeker]

I just don't think it's right to suggest that Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and millions of other Christians missed this one because they simply didn't know their Bible.
OK. I'll grant you that last point. So, rather than PV, let's discuss something really important like the names of the three wisemen. We all know it was three right? No, not from the Bible, but from tradition.

[Speculative]

Their names were Balthazar, Gaspar, and Melchior.

And since this information does not contradict the Bible, what is the big problem with someone appealing to church tradition and choosing to believe this?

The Bible doesn't say how Peter died, so what's the problem believing that he was crucified upside-down as church tradition would have it?

I didn't think Methodists were Sola Scriptura people. I thought tradition, reason, and experience played a part in our beliefs. As I've already stated, I do not think church tradition is infallible, nor is Wesley our pope.

I do, however, think we should have a certain respect for the history and traditions of our church, including our Anglican and Catholic roots. What am I missing here?

[silentpoet]

What in the bible says there were 3 wisemen? There were 3 gifts, but nothing says there were 3 men.

Tradition is a poor excuse for believing something. Man kind can come up with all kinds of traditions that subvert God's intent. This is very clear from observing Jesus' earthly interactions with pharisees.

I disagree with perpetual virginity because to my understanding of scripture there are many contradictions of scripture. I do not condemn those who believe it. It is not an essential element of our salvation.

[Speculative]

What in the bible says there were 3 wisemen? There were 3 gifts, but nothing says there were 3 men.Nothing. That's GraceSeeker's point. He was trying to use it to make fun of me for supporting church tradition.

However, how do we know there weren't three wise men? The Bible doesn't tell how many, so it could just as well have been three. If people believe that there are three, what basis do we have to tell them they're wrong? None. IMO.

Tradition is a poor excuse for believing something. Man kind can come up with all kinds of traditions that subvert God's intent. This is very clear from observing Jesus' earthly interactions with pharisees. Tradition is what brought us the Bible. I know you hold the Bible in high regard. You may even hold to Sola Scriptura (your posts kind of give me that impression)

However, the Bible was brought to us by church tradition. It does not itself say which specific books were and were not considered legitimate scripture. We got that from the early church fathers, who made decisions largely upon what churches considered legitimate.

If tradition is a poor excuse for believing in something, then we have nothing but a poor excuse for believing that the book of Matthew, upon which we are basing our arguments, is even part of the inspired scripture.

You can't legitimately discard church tradition wholesale without calling into question the entire canon of scripture.

I disagree with perpetual virginity because to my understanding of scripture there are many contradictions of scripture. I do not condemn those who believe it. It is not an essential element of our salvation.I tend to agree with you here. The only difference we have is that I am hesitant in my disagreement because I allow my beliefs to be informed by the Wesleyan quadrilateral.

I can't presume to speak for what informs your view, but from this side of the screen, it appears more in line with modern, Western evangelicalism than what would normally come from our Wesleyan/Anglican, and yes, Roman Catholic roots.

[silentpoet]

I do lean toward Sola Scriptura, but not totally. I disagree with you that it is tradition that brings us scripture. But we may be arguing different terms or semantics. I am familiar, in broad terms, with how we got our current Canon.

My basic way of understanding issues is to compare traditions with my understanding of scripture. When tradition differs from scripture I count it as wrong. I am not saying my understanding of scripture is perfect, but I think I am fairly well versed in the bible. I have a very low opinion of the Roman Catholic church, and that is not likely to change, but it does shape or color my opinions. This is where I am coming from.

[GraceSeeker]

Nothing. That's GraceSeeker's point. He was trying to use it to make fun of me for supporting church tradition.

Yes, you got my point, but hopefully it didn't come across as making fun of you. I really do grant your point that Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and millions of other Christians can't be dismissed as simply not knowing their Bible. They may have (in my opinion) erred on this particular doctrine, but let us not say that it was because they didn't know their Bible. They knew it, probably better than me, and yet still were able to accept this view that I cannot find support for in scripture.


However, how do we know there weren't three wise men? The Bible doesn't tell how many, so it could just as well have been three. If people believe that there are three, what basis do we have to tell them they're wrong? None. IMO.

Tradition is what brought us the Bible. I know you hold the Bible in high regard. You may even hold to Sola Scriptura (your posts kind of give me that impression)

However, the Bible was brought to us by church tradition. It does not itself say which specific books were and were not considered legitimate scripture. We got that from the early church fathers, who made decisions largely upon what churches considered legitimate.

If tradition is a poor excuse for believing in something, then we have nothing but a poor excuse for believing that the book of Matthew, upon which we are basing our arguments, is even part of the inspired scripture.

You can't legitimately discard church tradition wholesale without calling into question the entire canon of scripture.

I know you were speaking of another when you made the comment about one's posts giving the impression of calling my posts of coming from a Sola Scriptura point of view. Just to clarify, though you might also see that in my posts from time to time, I do not buy into that theology. Rather mine would probably be called Prima Scriptura (scripture first).

As for the names of the wisemen or even the idea that there were three, I can see how the idea that there were three might come out of the Biblical record, though I think it requires a person to jump to a conclusion. All we really know from the biblical record is that there were at least two, there may in fact have been 50 or more.

But as for the origins of the names:
In the Eastern church a variety of different names are given for the three, but in the West the names have been settled since the 8th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_century) as Caspar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_%28name%29), Melchior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior) and Balthasar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthasar). The names of the Magi derive from an early 6th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century) Greek manuscript in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria), translated into the Latin Excerpta Latina Barbari. The Latin text Collectanea et Flores continues the tradition of three kings and their names and gives additional details of their clothes, coming from Syria. This text is said to be from the 8th century, of Irish origin. In the Eastern churches, Ethiopian Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Church), for instance, has Hor, Karsudan, and Basanater, while the Armenians have Kagbha, Badadakharida and Badadilma.

None of these names is obviously Persian.... In contrast, the Syrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria) Christians name the Magi Larvandad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta#Vendidad), Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda). These names have a far greater likelihood of being originally Persian, though that does not, of course, guarantee their authenticity.


--source Wikipeida



Now, I don't know anyone who creates a full-blown theology around these names, but they are every bit as much tradition at that of Mary's pertual virginity. So, why would they not have the same weight. I want to suggest that one reason that we don't see a lot of credibility attached to the names is the source and dating of the tradition. It is too late, and comes from sources that are not recognized as being apostolic in origin. We accept that canon of scripture because the dating and source is apostolic in origin. Now, when it comes to the beliefs regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, what I read from the documentation on it provided by the Catholic church is a tradition that originated later than the apostolic age, hence I find it to simply be a tradition of men. Thus, I find the beliefs with regards to Mary's perpetual virginity to be more on par with the tradition that gave us the names of the wisemen (however many there were), than the tradition that gave us the scriptures.

[Speculative]

We accept that canon of scripture because the dating and source is apostolic in origin. Now, when it comes to the beliefs regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, what I read from the documentation on it provided by the Catholic church is a tradition that originated later than the apostolic age, hence I find it to simply be a tradition of men. Thus, I find the beliefs with regards to Mary's perpetual virginity to be more on par with the tradition that gave us the names of the wisemen (however many there were), than the tradition that gave us the scriptures.
I have a couple of questions about this GraceSeeker:

1) What is the apostolic source and dating for, say, the canonicity of Mark's gospel? The earliest case for canonicity that I'm aware of is Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" in 170 AD. Is there a first century document specifically addressing the canonicity of Mark's gospel?

If not, then I would submit that the "earliest date" method of determining the legitimacy of doctrine works against your case. Even granting the later date someone gave for the Protoevangelium of James of 150 AD (Catholic sources say 120 AD) the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity predates the declaration of the canonicity of Mark. Therefore, by your method of determination, we should be more likely to believe that Mary remained a virgin for life than we should accept Mark as part of the canon.

NOTE: I'm not in any way questioning the canonicity of Mark. I believe Mark is just as much inspired by God as the other gospels. I singled out this gospel, because I'm not aware of an apostolic endorsement of it. I picked Mark for this example because Matthew and John were both apostolic writings, and Paul specifically declared the inspiration of the apostles. Thus, those gospels have both scriptural and apostolic support that Mark, to me, appears to lack.

2) What is the proper role of the Wesleyan quadrilateral?
Usually, I see the term you used, "traditions of men" mentioned pejoratively. It is my impression that the traditional Anglican understanding of tradition was that, while it is subject to scripture, it is held in high regard and still useful in determining doctrine.

In the current case of PV, I think it is fair to question the interpretation of the verses in question by Catholic/Orthodox and other sources. My problem is that you guys seem to be saying. "Well, this is just a tradition of men so I reject it on that basis alone". I think it is incumbent upon us, as Wesleyans, to consider the arguments put forth by the proponents of this doctrine and make our decision based on the Wesleyan quadrilateral, not scripture alone. We're not Southern Baptists, nor or we Calvinists. We shouldn't readily discard church tradition.

3)For silentpoet: If the Bible did not come to us through church tradition, where did it come from? I'm not talking about the writings themselves, I'm talking about the compilations of the books. In other words, how did we decide which books would be included, and which would be excluded, if it was not from church tradition?

The Bible does not tell us which of the myriad gospels are the true gospels. To my knowledge God didn't send some kind of supernatural sign in the sky or a vision to some prophet telling us this.

We know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the true gospels, because an early church father, Irenaeus, stated "These four, and no others are the true gospels".

[GraceSeeker]

I don't have it before me right now, but it is my understanding that all of the Gospels are quoted by church fathers even before Iraneus. So, even though it might be later that the book is declared by someone to canonical, it was being used by the early church as a standard of the faith before that declaration was made. The apostolic nature of it is the connection that tradition ascribes to it associating the writer of Mark with Peter.

My knowledge of PV appears to be more limited than yours. I am not aware of attestations for the PV of Mary prior to the 2nd century, and all of the writing of the NT had been completed by then (at least according to those sources to which I defer for comment).


When thinking of tradition, I understand tradition to be a type of corporate experience. Thus it is the church's tradition that is being referred to in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. But while I find it helpful, I also recognize that it is the product of a man as well. That which I am most comfortable with accepting is that which I understand to come through revelation from God. As a United Methodist, I confessed that I believed not only that the teaching of scriptures as contained in the Old and New Testaments were sufficient, but also that they contained all that was necessary for salvation.

As I cannot find the teachings of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in them, I find that it is not necessary for salvation. If I am to accept it as true, if it is not in the scriptures, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of those who wish to promulgate it to show that it is indeed true, not just some people once taught it. I hold the same with regard to the Trinity. I do find evidence that the Trinity is true. I do not find the same with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor to the exclusion of women from service in the ministry of the church, nor to the concept of the Catholic church with its seat at Rome as the one true church under the primacy of Peter. I find that all of these things are traditions that may be indeed traditions of the church, but when I apply the remainder of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to them, they fail the test of scripture, reason, and experience.

[Speculative]

I don't have it before me right now, but it is my understanding that all of the Gospels are quoted by church fathers even before Iraneus. So, even though it might be later that the book is declared by someone to canonical, it was being used by the early church as a standard of the faith before that declaration was made. The apostolic nature of it is the connection that tradition ascribes to it associating the writer of Mark with Peter.True, but other "gospels" were being quoted and used by the churches at that time as well.

My question is "Which of these gospels are the true gospels, and which are not?"

Merely quoting a gospel and using it in a church does not make it a true gospel.

To my knowledge, Iraneaus in 170 AD was the first record we have of someone specifically stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only true gospels and all others were to be rejected.

Regardless, everything you just said still appeals to tradition for the formation of the gospels. And if tradition is so important as to inform us of this matter, I don't think we can lightly discard it when it informs us of other matters.

My knowledge of PV appears to be more limited than yours. I am not aware of attestations for the PV of Mary prior to the 2nd century, and all of the writing of the NT had been completed by then (at least according to those sources to which I defer for comment).No, my argument is not for the early formation of the PV doctrine, but for the late date of the public record for the formation of the canon (specifically, in this case, the four gospels). I still contend that the earliest record we have for the canonicity of the four gospels--and the rejections of counterfeits, was late 2nd century. I did not say that PV was believed in prior to the 2nd century(although it may have been). However, I DO contend that PV is at least contemporary with the assertion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and no others, are the true gospels.


When thinking of tradition, I understand tradition to be a type of corporate experience. Thus it is the church's tradition that is being referred to in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. But while I find it helpful, I also recognize that it is the product of a man as well. That which I am most comfortable with accepting is that which I understand to come through revelation from God. As a United Methodist, I confessed that I believed not only that the teaching of scriptures as contained in the Old and New Testaments were sufficient, but also that they contained all that was necessary for salvation.

As I cannot find the teachings of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in them, I find that it is not necessary for salvation. If I am to accept it as true, if it is not in the scriptures, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of those who wish to promulgate it to show that it is indeed true, not just some people once taught it. I hold the same with regard to the Trinity. I do find evidence that the Trinity is true. I do not find the same with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor to the exclusion of women from service in the ministry of the church, nor to the concept of the Catholic church with its seat at Rome as the one true church under the primacy of Peter. I find that all of these things are traditions that may be indeed traditions of the church, but when I apply the remainder of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to them, they fail the test of scripture, reason, and experience.I pretty much agree with you here. I do not think PV is necessary for salvation nor do I think it stands up to the quadrilateral when you apply the other legs to it.

My beef here is that it appeared to me that some of you guys were saying that church tradition is not important, and we can reject any belief we find to be simply "the traditions of men".

To counter this thought, I tried to point out that the inclusion of the gospel of Mark in the Bible is due to the traditions of men. I don't think anyone has yet countered this, and you even said that it was due to tradition that Mark was considered apostolic in nature.

If I came in here and posted that I'd cut Mark and Luke and Acts out of my Bible--you would rightly think I was some kind of crazy heretic. However, their inclusion is due to the traditions of men.

I just ask that we Christians don't discard doctrines held by the majority of Christians for nearly 2000 years just because they are tradition. I suggest this only be done after the application of earnest prayer and thought. I would also ask that those who DO hold to these doctrines be treated with respectful disagreement rather than accusations of Biblical illiteracy or kookiness.

[GraceSeeker]

OK. Fair enough, all points well taken.

And I think you maybe also now better understand why I referred to PV as based on the "traditions of men". When applying the other legs of the quadrilateral to it, it doesn't have any other legs to stand on except tradition. To me, unless that leg is scripture, one leg is not a solid enough foundation to be accepted. Hence PV isn't based on Scripture, Reason, or Experience, but only the Traditions of Men. The acceptance of Mark appears to be based on not just tradition, but also reason and experience, the same reason and experience that rejected the Gospel of Thomas as not being canonical, and that found value in the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letter of Barnabas, but not enough to permamently include them in the canon of scripture (though for a time many churches used them on par with the rest of what became our NT).

[Speculative]

Thanks, GraceSeeker,

I think I finally understand where you are coming from.

At first it appeared to me that you were rejecting PV because it is based on tradition, and that you were rejecting tradition itself.

Now I see (and agree) that you reject it because it is based solely on tradition.

I agree that PV has no other support when the quadrilateral is applied, and that the gospels have the support of tradition, reason, and experience (and I would argue scripture, as well, in the cases of Matthew and John, since Paul endorsed the inspiration of the apostles).

I think I am understanding the quadrilateral better, now, because of this discussion. Thanks for your help. :)