Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archives: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3 Note: This is about Christian views in General, and not just the third paragraph.

Nicene Creed in Third paragraph

I have no problem deleting it. Any comments? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to accuse any editors or anything, however I believe that the inclusion of the Creed references was an attempt to exclude certain 'Christian' groups that do not accept the Creed. The question is, how important to the majority of Christians is the Creed, and who exactly are we excluding by mentioning it? I can see a case for leaving it in and for excluding it.--Andrew c 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was the other way around: there was a dispute over how to word the Christian views subparagraph (not yet a full paragraph) and whether to include nontrinitarian views. My proposed (and accepted) compromise was to attribute the views that were already there to those Christians who affirm the Nicene Creed, while also acknowledging that there were other Christians who believe the creed misinterprets scipture. This was all discussed at the beginning of Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 1. However, as I said earlier, I see no real need to mention both Trinitarianism and the creed itself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the whole point of including the creed is to indicate Trinitarianism, and since that is now explicitly mentioned, the creed reference can go. I mean, apart from the Trinity, I think that everything else in the creed is affirmed by all the various "flavors" of people who take the title "Christian." So I see no problem with getting rid of the mention of the creed. --MonkeeSage 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, especially since we moved the "Nicene bracket" back a couple of sentences. I suggested the creed last January because we were discussing the historical roots of trinitarian beliefs, and also because Aiden's summary quite frankly sounded to me like a paraphrase of the second article of the creed. We kept the creed reference later because it provided a transition from the previous paragraph about historicity. Now, however, direct reference to the creed sounds redundant even to me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we accomodate those who affirm the doctrines in the creed, but reject creeds themselves? ("No creed but Christ") --CTSWyneken 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just me thinking out loud (mabye I'm wrong!), but I think that such people are a small enough minority that they do no warrent specific inclusion. Aside from such a view being unintelligible (because "no creed but Christ" is a creed in itself), I think that the large majority of Christianity accepts secondary, uninspired creeds as a necessary part of the life of the Church; in practice if not in word. --MonkeeSage 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The large majority of Christianity (Catholicism+Eastern Orthodoxy+Oriental Orthodoxy+Assyrian Church of the East+Lutheranism+Reformed+Methodist+Anglican, at least) accepts the Nicene Creed in full. Can you provide any evidence that the groups which accept the content of the Nicene Creed but not the idea of creeds are any less significant than non-trinitarian groups? john k 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a minority, but not a small one. I do not argue for the logic of the position (I'm a Lutheran seminary staff member, after all! We add a whole volume of creeds! ;-) ) The Baptist tradition, especially the Southern Baptists, and the Restorationist movements (Churches of God, Churches of Christ, Christian Church -- Disciples of Christ, etc.) and I believe the Mennonites and the Amish are there. The point (as they make it) is that the Bible alone has authority and each believer is required to allegiance to it. Anyway, these fit my prior description. They are confessors in the doctrines of the ancient symbols, but oppose symbols themselves. --CTSWyneken 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand the distinction between a doctrine and a statement of doctrine, which is all that a creed is. Those of us who affirm creeds affirm the scriptural basis of the creeds. However, all of the above will become a nonissue if we reference the doctrines rather than the creeds, ie Trinitarians and Nontrinitarians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been a major change of "Most Christians" to "Mainstream Christians" in this article - without much discussion. "Mainstream" suggests large establishment churches. As a non-mainstream believer, Open Brethren, I would like to be included. Therefore I am changing this back to Most. If you disagree, do not revert. Discuss here instead. ^rossnixon 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What these folks are saying is that we should not require any specific human statement. Human words are not God's and we should obey only God's Word alone. If we buy this or not is not relevant. The fact that significant groups would be offended that we suggested they believe in a creed is enough for us to avoid the offense, if possible. --CTSWyneken 02:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we did, in fact, agree to remove the creed from the paragraph, and have implemented that decision. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading through Archive 1. Oh how far we've come. It got pretty heated, too. —Aiden 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not as heated as paragraph 2. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Half-siblings?

Genetics?

I'm trying to understand the comment about half-siblings in the Trinitarian views section. Half-siblings normally refers to genetic relationships. I presume it is used to say that Mary is the biological mother, but Joseph is not the biological father. Is this supposed to suggest that God has genes? Does this comment really add anything? Can we simply delete the comment about half-siblings? Ted 15:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sibling doesn't seem to necessarily suggest itself in a technical and genetic sense, it does seem to help get the reader to remember the point that Protestants tend to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and mary. Homestarmy 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit awkward to refer to them as "half-siblings." Beyond this, might it be wise to a) note that the Bible has nothing to say about Mary's perpetual virginity, and that this concept largely arose out of apocryphal writings like the Gospel of James, and that while many of the early church fathers accepted Mary's perpetual virginity, others (notably Origen) thought it more likely that Jesus's brethren were Mary's children by Joseph? john k 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Origen or the Gospel of James. "Half-sibling" simply refers to the Protestant doctrine that James the Just and the others shared one parent with Jesus, ie Mary. It's not saying that God has genes. It's simply saying that Jesus (unlike James and the others) does not have a human father. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

*Bad pun forthcoming* — God doesn't have genes, just Mary, cause Jesus is called ho monogenēs huios, heh. ;) --MonkeeSage 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make a pun, please stick to English (or Spanish). Otherwise I won't understand you. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that "half-sibling" is an extrapolation, and unless sourced, is POV. Most Protestants consider the siblings to be Mary and Joseph's children. That's verifiable (and hopefully, accurate). To add the "and thus half-siblings of Jesus" is less accurate, since it requires that most Pretestants have actually decided on the genetic relatedness of Mary and Jesus. Does Jesus share genes and mtDNA with Mary? My guess would be that few Protestants (or other Christians) have ever bothered to think about the genetics of Jesus. I think it would be more accurate to leave off those last few words. Guettarda 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some people are being too literal about the genetics, but what the hey, I'll remove the contentious phrase. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't think we should confine this to the opinions of modern religious groups, but, if we're going to discuss the issue, ought to discuss the origins of the views. In terms of the Infancy Gospel of James, here's a quote from Early Christian Writings.com: According to Hock, a major development found in the Protevangelium of James is this: "Mary, the central character, is no longer a virgin in the ordinary sense of a young woman of marriageable age, but a virgin of extraordinary purity and unending duration." Hock goes on to argue: "Indeed, Mary's purity is so emphasized that it becomes thematic and thus answers the fundamental question which guides the narrative: why Mary, of all the virgins in Israel, was chosen to be the mother of the son of God. The answer: no one could have been any purer. Hock is the author of The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Polebridge Press, 1996) ISBN 094434447X. Origen notes, But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. As far as I can gather, this Infancy Gospel is the earliest extant source for the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. It is certainly not to be found in any of the Canonical gospels. As for the rest of Origen, see here. He doesn't say that he thinks the Infancy Gospel is wrong, but neither is he convinced of it. I'm not sure where the idea of Jesus' brethren as his cousins comes from. I understand that use by the Evangelists of the Greek word for "sisters" makes this interepretation hard to sustain, but I don't have any relevant expertise to back that up with - I just read it somewhere. john k 22:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do reference Eusubius for the Orthodox view (OrthodoxWiki says it's also based on the Protoevangelion of James), and Jerome for the Catholic view. I may be wrong, but I don't think that the Protestant Reformers were looking back to Origen. It's a natural consequence of accepting the Virgin Birth, but not accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary, based on sola scriptura. So, they came to the same conclusion as Origen, but not based on Origen. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To respond to the others, I still don't understand why people think that "half-sibling" implies "genetic relatedness" while "cousin" does not. In both cases, we're talking about a blood relative through Mary. The Protestant position is that Jesus and James are related through Mary but not Joseph. The extrapolation is coming from Guettarda and Ted, not my original sentence. If you bring "genetic relatedness" into it, you either have to explain where that extra Y chromosome came from, or come up with something like that Androgynous Christ book that has been floating around. This was twenty centuries before genetic testing or paternity tests. In Christian beliefs its simply a mystery, and a miracle to boot. Genetics is beside the point.

We don't talk about the other siblings as much, but I've often heard James referred to as the younger half-brother of Jesus. A while back, an editor objected to the Nicene Creed ("seated at the right hand of God the Father") by asking if God has two hands and a face. IMHO, asking if God has genes is just as silly. Christians believe that Jesus' conception is simply a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Get over it. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone who shares at least one is a sibling. A sibling could also share the same parents without any genetic relatedness. A half-sib, on the other hand, is very specific in how it addresses the issue of relatedness. It isn't a question of whether God has genes - the canonical idea that Jesus was "fully human" requires that he have a full set of genes, but there is no way of knowing whether they were 45 chromosomes from Mary plus a new Y chromosome, or whether they were 23 of Mary's and 23 of Joseph's, or whether they were 46 chromosomes created de novo. Calling Mary and Joseph's children half-sibs makes specific assumptions about relatedness which is not, as far as I know, something that "most Protestants" do. Calling them "siblings" does not make new assumptions. That's all. It is correct to be vague when the underlying statement is vague. Adding precision which is not specified in the underlying source isn't compatible with NPOV. Guettarda 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's simply how the terms are defined. A full sibling shares two biological parents. A half sibling shares one biological parent. A stepsibling shares zero biological parents. The genetics God chose not to reveal. Any discussion of genetics adds precision which is not specified in the underlying source. I'm not the one who brought up genetics. I simply said that Protestants believe that Jesus and James shared one biological parent, ie, Mary. That's what half-sibling means. Protestants believe that Jesus is a half-sibling (not stepsibling or cousin) of James et al through a miracle of the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily though genetics. We don't know the genetics. Miracles cannot be explained through genetics. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Protestants believe that Jesus is a half-sibling ... of James...." I guess I didn't get the memo. It is not really as big a deal as some of you are making it into. Is the statement about half-siblings needed? Or, just another POV? It is pretend-science, and, quite frankly, demeans the topic. But, keep it in if it is so important to y'all. I'm used to POV pushing. Ted 04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by POV-pushing. I'm just saying that if we're going to include the Orthodox (stepsiblings) and Catholic (cousins) POVs, we should also include the Protestant POV. Anyone who wishes to exclude the Protestant POV is guilty of POV-pushing IMHO, and censorship to boot. All this talk of genetics (which was never in the article anyway, nor should it be) is pretend-science. This is important to me because, quite frankly, I am getting tired of people mocking Protestant beliefs. Still, it's not POV-pushing, it's simply including all relevant POVs, and the Protestant POV is just as relevant as the Catholic and Orthodox POVs. Just saying "sibling" is too vague: it can also mean the Orthodox view of stepsiblings, and it can also mean full siblings which would deny the virgin birth! We Protestants reject both the stepsibling and full sibling interpretations.

I apologize if I'm speaking too strongly, but this is really starting to get on my nerves. At the moment we say neither siblings nor stepsiblings. That's as far as I am willing to go. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"I am getting tired of people mocking Protestant beliefs ... We Protestants reject both the stepsibling and full sibling interpretations." I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed what the reformation was all about. I don't mock Protestant beliefs, mainly because I am a Protestant. One reason I am is that we do not have a Pope who decrees what Protestants have to believe. Describing the differences between the various branches of Christianity is fine -- they exist. Trying to add pretend-biology is not. I suspect that if you walk through any mainline middle-of-the-road Protestant church and ask people about half-siblings of Jesus, most would say they have either never thought about it or that it is irrelevant (my view). I've been 40+ years in Sunday schools, worship services, and meetings for worship, plus various readings, and don't recall it ever being mentioned (I'll go back and check my books). Of course, it is possible that I am out of touch with the "majority" of Protestants. Being a Protestant, that's OK too. I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I did not mean to do that. I'll bow out of this discussion. Ted 16:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ted, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. When you asked if God has genes, you seemed to imply that God the Father had sex with Mary, something that is anathema not only to Protestants but to the vast majority of Christianity. When you said, "sorry, I didn't get the memo," you seemed to mock Protestantism, which isn't based on memoranda but rather sola scriptura. (The Bible mentions the Virgin Birth and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Bible does not say that Joseph had a previous wife. That idea comes not from the Bible, but from the apocryphal gospels of james and Peter.) Those who have thought about it would say that the miracle of the Virgin Birth is supernatural and thus cannot be explained by a naturalistic approach like genetics. If you try to explain the supernatural in terms of naturalism, you either deny religion or you get pseudoscience. The Protestants I'm familiar with refer to Jesus and James as co-uterine half-brothers.

It is, of course, possible that there are Protestant groups I'm not familiar with who deny that Jesus and James are co-uterine half-brothers. So, which part do you disagree with: that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, or that James was the biological son of Mary and Joseph? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. To call people half-sibs implies a precise genetic relationship. To call Jesus and James half-sibs is to make assumptions about the degree of genetic relatedness between Jesus and Mary. I am unaware of any source, be it scriptural or scholarly, which delves into that issue. More importantly, so say that "most Protestants" believe something, it must be supported by sources. While most Protestants probably do believe that James, etc., were Mary & Joseph's children, I doubt many of them have an opinion on the degree of genetic relatedness between Mary and Jesus. Thus, any statement to that effect must be sourced. To do otherwise is to go beyond the available data, which we cannot do. Guettarda 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - this isn't about what you meant when you said half-sib. Some people would be happy to use the term half-sibs, without coming to any conclusion on the issue of genetics. But we aren't writing for "some people", we are writing for everyone. I think I understand what you meant by using the term; the problem is that it is insufficiently unambiguous for our purposes. If some naitve English speakers familiar with the story can read it that way that several of us did read it, then the wording in ambiguous and can be read as meaning something other than the underlying sources meant. All that really matters is accuracy and clear communication. Guettarda 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers I am familiar with are happy to use the term "half brother" without coming to any conclusion on the issue of genetics. Also, Homestarmy is a member of the Way of the Master, and he seemed comfortable with the idea. The Bible says nothing about genetics, and neither do we have a DNA sample, so there's no way that we can know what the genetics are. TedE has shown me that there are some Protestants who don't believe that Jesus and James were half brothers, although I'm still not sure which Protestants these are. Since apparently not all Protestants agree, we'll leave the phrase "half siblings" out of the article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think i've told you before Archola, The Way of the Master isn't a denomination, its just an evangelistic metholodigy which happens to have Biblical support (Imagine that :D ). And Archola is right, "half brother" or "half siblings" seems to suggest that Jesus was connected with His brothers in a formal sense only by half of His bloodline, namely, His mother's. But hey, if its possible some people don't immedietly think "They were His brothers via Mary but not by Joseph, making them half-brothers", I dunno if it's such a big deal to leave it in. Now, technically speaking, for a biographical article, I think it would be a big deal to mention that Jesus had brothers, and half-brothers in a formal sense I guess to boot, so why don't we simply write "Half-brothers in a formal, though perhaps not genetic, sense."? Homestarmy 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. "Well, the Lutherans, Presbyterians, ... Also, Homestarmy is a member of the Way of the Master, and he seemed comfortable with the idea." WP:NOR. Anyway, this one Methodist read your wording to mean "shares 50% of his genes with...", so does that cancel out your unnamed sources? ;)
2. To say "half sib" has implications about the egentic relatedness...regardless of what it means to you, we are writing for everyone. The language can easily be taken to mean something that "most Protestants" probably do not mean. We can't use misleading language. So, unless you actually mean that "most Protestants" believe this specific thing about the level of genetic relatedness between Jesus and his brothers (and can support that assertion), the language isn't acceptable in this article. The issue here is clear communication. Guettarda 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible to add some words to the effect of "Had half-brothers formally, though possibly not in a genetic sense"? Homestarmy 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If we need sources for claiming what that the traditional Protestant view is, here are a few: Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 318:

. . .Catholics hold that Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters" were really cousins, while Protestants maintain that they were true siblings having the same two parents.

Ask Yahoo![1]:

The Catholic perspective interprets these terms [brothers/sisters] broadly, perhaps referring to the children of Joseph by another marriage. Protestants, however, claim that they refer to actual siblings of Jesus.

BeliefNet.com[2]:

The common Protestant view is that Mary was a virgin before Jesus' birth, but that afterwards she and Joseph had natural children, who would have been Jesus' younger siblings.

And regarding genetics, apparently ReligiousTolerance.org wasn't aware[3]:

Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a life-long virgin and that Jesus was the only child that she gave birth to; he was her first-born and last-born child. . . . Some Catholics believe that Jesus' brothers and sisters were in fact half-siblings; they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

» MonkeeSage « 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to just quote scripture and then state what some Christians believe; i.e. some interpret this to mean cousings while others believe they were siblings through Joseph and Mary? We could broadly qualify who believes what. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are only the official views of Christian churches to be discussed here? What about the views of (frequently Christian) scholars, who seem mostly to support the Protestant position (my understanding is that even Catholic scholars, like John P. Maier, tend to feel that the evidence best supports this view). john k 03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, for the record, "half sibling" has always meant brothers and sisters who share one and only one biological parent (denotation). Nobody ever understood "half sibling" in genetic terms (connotation) before we had a science of genetics. IMHO it's taking the term "half sibling" out of context, but like I said, I concede. We'll leave the phrase "half sibling" out of the article if the connotations are going to cause trouble. Before Ted started this thread, I also wasn't aware that there are Protestants who understand the Virgin Birth in terms of genetics. I was wrong.

Homestarmy, I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but I grow weary of trying to rephrase a simple term for the sake of avoiding bad connotations. Look what we've done (and continue to do) to the second paragraph. It's better just to leave the phrase "half siblings" out if some people don't understand it to mean that Jesus shares one biological parent (Mary) with James and the rest, as long as we do say that James et al were the children of Mary and Joseph. Or is someone going to challenge that?

MonkeeSage, John K, thank you for yout help. It appears that we are indeed going to need sources for this.

StormRider, the scriptural reference is in the Jesus#Genealogy_and_family section. I moved the interpretation of the passage to the Christian views section because I felt that is where it belongs. Of course, we can also add references to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 3:6 to that section to clarify what we mean by Jesus' relatives. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

John K is correct about Meier:

Needless to say, all of these arguments, even when taken together, cannot produce absolute certitude in a matter for which there is so little evidence. Nevertheless, if—prescinding from faith and later Church teaching—the historian or exegete is asked to render a judgment on the NT and patristic texts we have examined, viewed simply as historical sources, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings.

This judgment arises first of all from the criterion of multiple attestation: Paul, Mark, John, Josephus and perhaps Luke in Acts 1:14 speak independently of the "brother(s) of Jesus" (or the Lord). Most of their statements yoke the brothers (and at times sisters) directly with Mary the mother of Jesus in phrases like "his mother and (his) brothers."

To this initial fact of multiple attestation of sources must then be added the natural sense of "brother(s)" in all these passages, as judged by the regular usage of Josephus and the NT. The Greek usage of Josephus distinguishes between "brother" and "counsin," most notably when he is rewriting a biblical story to replace "brother" with the more exact "cousin." Thus it is especially significant that Josephus, an independent 1st-century Jewish writer, calls James of Jerusalem, without further ado, "the brother of Jesus."

In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means "cousin" or even "stepbrother," while there are abundant cases of its meaning "physical brother" (full or half). This is the natural sense of adelphos in Paul, Mark and John; Matthew and Luke apparently fol-lowed and developed this sense. Paul's usage is particularly important because, unlike Josephus or the evangelists, he is not simply writing about past events transmitted to him through stories in oral or written sources. He speaks of the brother(s) of the Lord as people he has known and met, people who are living even as he is writing. His use of "brother" is obviously not determined by revered, decades-long Gospel traditions whose set formulas he would be loath to change. And Paul, or a close disciple, shows that the Pauline tradition knew perfectly well the word for "cousin" (anepsios in Col 4:10). Hence, from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century. (idem., pp. 331-332)

Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to give the context. » MonkeeSage « 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Monkeesage, for finding the specific quote. I came across a mention of his position in a review of Meier, which found his lengthy discussion of the issue a bit amusing and noted it as an idiosyncrasy deriving from Meier's Catholicism - that is, most non-Catholic (or Orthodox) scholars wouldn't really feel necessary to make a long argument on behalf of the idea that the Brethren of Jesus were Joseph and Mary's children. john k 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Origen

Hey Archola, I don't think that I was trying to say that Protestants got the idea from Origen (although I'd imagine that early Protestant theologians read Origen and the other church fathers). I was just trying to say that we should make clear a) that there's nothing in our oldest sources to support the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity; and b) that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was not universally accepted by the early church fathers (lower-case, as Origen isn't a Church Father), and only became dogma somewhat later. I do think that the Protevanglion of James should probably be mentioned. I also wonder if this issue really should be discussed in the "trinitarian views" section. john k 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to put it somewhere after I moved it out of the Gospel accounts. I know what the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant interpretations are. I don't know what the nontrinitarian interpretations are. Of course, anything not specifically trinitarian or nontrinitarian could go in the general intro to the section, before the subheaders.

To be honest, I don't know when the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary developed. Does it predate Jerome? If not, we've already sourced it. If so, someone should find the first reference to the doctrine, but not necessarily for this article.

We do have history of Christianity, not to mention perpetual virginity of Mary, to explore how the idea developed. We don't have as much room here. Including footnotes, we mention the Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Arians, Augustine, Pelagius, Jerome, Eusubius and the seven ecumenical councils. That's already a fair amount of history IMHO. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Grigory,

I just want to address your chronological question. The perpetual virginity already lies behind The Protoevangelium of James (usually dated around 150 AD). However, this cannot be the "origin" as it takes the PV for granted and only tries explanations (which came to be accepted by the Eastern Orthodox). I don't know any earlier appearence clearly spelled out. That's predating Jerome by 250 years at least. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, the history of this doctrine is well explained in perpetual virginity of Mary. Unlike John K, I'm not convinced that we need to explain that history in this article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, three things.

1. As per John K, I've moved the reference to James and the other family members out of the Trinitarian views section.
2. As per John K and Str1977, I've added a reference to the Protoevangelium of James as a footnote off the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine.
3. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the half-siblings thing. I've removed it from the article and have no intention of putting it back in.

Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be the stick in the mud here, but the the Protoevangelium of James doesn't teach perpetual virginity (at least not explicitly, though some Roman Catholic apologists have infered that "the Lord's Virgin" is a vocational title rather than a temporal description). I just raised this issue at the perpetual virginity article's talk page. So I think that the footnote is not a good idea. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 2:17) would be better, since he undisputedly claimed that Mary was a virgin perpetually. --MonkeeSage 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change, then. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a Brethren of Jesus article to deal with this stuff, and only briefly mention it here to say that the brethren of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels, but that different groups have different interpretations of what that means. john k 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article exists under the title Desposyni. I'll create the redirect, since not everyone will be familiar with the term "Desposyni." (I have to keep looking it up myself.) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2 cents: Though LDS believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, they do not believe that Mary remained a virgin. Mary is believed to have birthed other children with Joseph. In this we closely align with the Protestant interpretation of scripture. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)