Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[cheezey]

not what I meant, but yes.

 

[joe370]

~

I don’t know, to be honest. One could ask the same thing even if they were Jesus’ cousins.

I don’t think we can really know too much in terms of scripture alone. For example, why would the Greek Septuagint translators call Lot, Abraham’s “adelphos” (brother) considering the fact that Lot was Abraham’s nephew? Gen. 13:8 I think the word brother was used pretty universally; after all the word cousin is only used once in the NT.

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical -

I have already done this, but here it is again:My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas… (Col 4:10)

Well, that works both ways. For example, Hebrew/Aramaic words for cousin, nephew and other kinsmen can indeed be rendered as adelphos in Greek, as is the case with the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint, (Greek translation of the Hebrew) translates cousin and nephew as adelphos.

I just don’t think that a sola scriptura advocate can claim to know, with certainty, one way or the other.

 

[joe370]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers

Can you provide at least one example where any one person (ranging from the 1st century to the protestant reformation) believed what you believe? Even Martin Luther (father of Protestantism) did not agree with you.

 

[joe370]

it seems that you need to familiarize yourself with what your church teaches.

Radical, can you provide at least one example where any one person (ranging from the 1st century to the protestant reformation) believed what you believe regarding Jesus having blood brothers? Even Martin Luther (father of Protestantism) did not agree with you.

 

[cheezey]

I don’t know, to be honest. One could ask the same thing even if they were Jesus’ cousins.

I don’t think we can really know too much in terms of scripture alone. For example, why would the Greek Septuagint translators call Lot, Abraham’s “adelphos” (brother) considering the fact that Lot was Abraham’s nephew? Gen. 13:8 I think the word brother was used pretty universally; after all the word cousin is only used once in the NT.

Regarding why stepbrothers wouldn’t stick around to take of Mary:
Someone responded - about a billion posts ago! - and this is the gist only, and hopefully accurate from my memory:
Who could live up to the care and supreme reputation of Jesus?! They were probably feeling a bit, well, jealous. Little Brother was quite The Son!!

 

[joe370]

Regarding why stepbrothers wouldn’t stick around to take of Mary:
Someone responded - about a billion posts ago! - and this is the gist only, and hopefully accurate from my memory:
Who could live up to the care and supreme reputation of Jesus?! They were probably feeling a bit, well, jealous. Little Brother was quite The Son!!

Hmm…I don’t know about that one… LOL…I tend to believe that Jesus and John the apostle were very very close…had a unique relationship. Other than that, I got nothin… LOL

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by cheezey View Post
Regarding why stepbrothers wouldn’t stick around to take of Mary:
Someone responded - about a billion posts ago! - and this is the gist only, and hopefully accurate from my memory:
Who could live up to the care and supreme reputation of Jesus?! They were probably feeling a bit, well, jealous. Little Brother was quite The Son!!

Of course, I do think that it would be easier to believe that Jesus would entrust His mother’s care to actual blood brothers vs step brothers or cousins.

 

[cheezey]

Of course, I do think that it would be easier to believe that Jesus would entrust His mother’s care to actual blood brothers vs step brothers or cousins.

yeah, you would think, but for the sake of the on-going debate of whether He had blood brothers or not, this response was given for only one side of the proverbial coin…

 

[joe370]

Hey Cheezey…

Based on my research everyone closest to the apostolic age seemed to clearly recognize that the “brothers of the Lord” were in fact not Mary’s sons. If we cannot trust those closest to the action then we certainly cannot trust anyone stemming from the protestant reformation, or post reformation e.g. 17th, 18th…21st century.

No one seems to ever infer from the word “adelphoi” that Jesus had blood brothers. Moreover, they all denied it quite enthusiastically. Seems pretty conclusive to me…

 

[joe370]

yeah, you would think, but for the sake of the on-going debate of whether He had blood brothers or not, this response was given for only one side of the proverbial coin…

True…Based on my research everyone closest to the apostolic age seemed to clearly recognize that the “brothers of the Lord” were in fact not Mary’s sons. If we cannot trust those closest to the action then we certainly cannot trust anyone stemming from the protestant reformation, or post reformation e.g. 17th, 18th…21st century.

No one seems to ever infer from the word “adelphoi” that Jesus had blood brothers. Moreover, they all denied it quite enthusiastically. Seems pretty conclusive to me…

 

[joe370]

yeah, you would think, but for the sake of the on-going debate of whether He had blood brothers or not, this response was given for only one side of the proverbial coin…

To be quite honest, I absolutely do not think that there is any way to know, with any degree of certainty, one way or the other, if we are basing our conclusions strictly on scripture alone. At least I cannot…

 

[cheezey]

To be quite honest, I absolutely do not think that there is any way to know, with any degree of certainty, one way or the other, if we are basing our conclusions strictly on scripture alone. At least I cannot…

In short, we were not there.And while the scriptures are extremely consistent in the ‘pass-it-down’ sort of way with its translations over the years - I’ll need to find someone else’s better wording of that later - we weren’t there. I am on board in one direction. I cannot and will not be able to prove scientifically my faith. I cannot and will not question my faith. Those who are secure in it do not need to. A very lovely gift.

 

[joe370]

In short, we were not there.And while the scriptures are extremely consistent in the ‘pass-it-down’ sort of way with its translations over the years - I’ll need to find someone else’s better wording of that later - we weren’t there. I am on board in one direction. I cannot and will not be able to prove scientifically my faith. I cannot and will not question my faith. Those who are secure in it do not need to. A very lovely gift.

 

[jrtrent]

In addition, if we take the view of some non-Catholics that has been proposed here regarding “brothers” = “blood brothers”, then are we to understand that there were 120 of them, coming from the womb of Mama Mary??

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the** brothers** (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).–Acts 1:15

Egads! I think that we truly ought to venerate any woman whose womb could nurture and nourish that many brothers of Christ!

Without arguing against the fact that words like “brother” can have more than one meaning, the word used to refer to the 120 in verse 15 is a different Greek word, at least in some manuscripts. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word rendered “brothers” in your quote is from the Greek word mathetes, and is translated as “disciples” in some versions. However, in verse 16, Peter calls these disciples “brothers,” using the same Greek word rendered brothers in verse 14 when referring to Jesus’s brothers.

I think we can all agree that the most authoritative English translation is the Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha (with imprimatur by John Francis Wheaton, Archbishop of Hartford); after all, the drawing of the little boy being spanked by his father in Sirach 30 is of inestimable value in promoting proper, effective means of discipline. In this fine translation, we read, “They gathered frequently to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers. A few days later there was a meeting of the believers, about a hundred and twenty in all, and Peter stood up to speak. ‘My brothers,’ he said, 'the scripture had to come true in which the Holy Spirit, speaking through David, made a prediction about Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.” Maybe it’s Peter’s mother who should be venerated, since he was the one with 120 brothers. (I should note that this rendering is from the 1978 edition; the 1992 edition available online says “my friends” rather than my brothers in verse 16, but newer things aren’t always better things).

I was going to suggest that if you wanted a really big number, you might use the more than 500 brothers in 1 Cor. 15:6; however, I’m afraid the Good News Bible renders that as “then he appeared to more than 500 of his followers.”

 

[CaptFun]

Here is another point (probably mentioned elsewhere but …): As Jesus consigned Mary to John – and John was a close relative or the closest as some here have claimed – that would make a lot of sense.

It would NOT make a lot of sense that on the same day that:

– He is asking His Father’s forgiveness for his murderers " … for they know not what they do …"

– And telling an admitted thief that he will “be in Paradise that day” with Him …

– That He’d suddenly and publicly, with the last words out of His mouth practically
TURN on His “brothers and sisters” and give the care of “their mother” or step mother even to a more distant relative, John, even if he WAS a first cousin!

Jesus’ actions are not explained - but they are accounted. Questions arise:

Is Mary a “special gift” given only to the most faithful followers of Jesus? < Food for thought - and possible controversy I suppose – but an interesting topic.

Wouldn’t this have been a public “slap in the face” of closer relatives of Mary - particularly children or step-children - IF THERE WERE ANY?

Actually, I think "siblings" might be OK by me … as it might mean “raised under the same roof” or something. I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as it is taught by the Church Jesus founded and gave keys to. Back about the time Mary was with the Apostles too (pre-New Testament times, before scripture verses were there to be used to prove or unprove what they knew personally about Mary).

The Bible doesn’t say siblings of course … and the “brothers and sisters” thing is imprecise language to begin with

– unless Mary AGAIN had children by the Holy Spirit (which NOBODY teaches do they)?

– thus these full “brothers and sisters” would be divine too (?!) one would think if TRUE brothers and sisters instead of half-brothers and half-sisters …

– and then HOW half … by Joseph and a previous spouse (?) leaving Mary a virgin perpetually as the Catholic Church teaches?

Pertaining to THIS thread – YES the verses mentioned DO say brothers and sisters (in questions raised by people who didn’t believe in Jesus it must be remembered) and in other places where some are named as “brothers of the Lord” without parental reference.

But the Catholic Church asserts that these were not physical children of Mary. After that,
it’s a minor point as to why these people are identified as “brothers and sisters” of the Lord. If older children of Joseph by a previous marriage? So what if SO or if NOT? If related further away? Even more so.

I’ve noticed a trend where these arguments ramp up ***to doubt the celibacy of not only Mary and Joseph … but also Jesus Himself …(?!) *** as if it were impossible! But Jesus said some do it for the sake of the Kingdom.

 

[jrtrent]

Here is another point (probably mentioned elsewhere but …): As Jesus consigned Mary to John . . .

Yes, both Randy Carson (through linked articles) and SteveVH (in post 74) brought up that point (and there may have been others). But, as Randy Carson said a couple pages back, “And now the entire thread begins again…”

All I can offer is what I mentioned in post 75, a footnote from the MacArthur study Bible:

19:26 the disciple whom He loved. This is a reference to John (see note on 13:23; cf. Introduction: Author and Date). Jesus, as firstborn and breadwinner of the family before He started His ministry, did not give the responsibility to His brothers because they were not sympathetic to His ministry nor did they believe in Him (7:3-5) and they likely were not present at the time (i.e., their home was in Capernaum–see 2:12).

 

[CaptFun]

Yes, both Randy Carson (through linked articles) and SteveVH (in post 74) brought up that point (and there may have been others). But, as Randy Carson said a couple pages back, “And now the entire thread begins again…”

All I can offer is what I mentioned in post 75, a footnote from the MacArthur study Bible:

19:26 the disciple whom He loved. This is a reference to John (see note on 13:23; cf. Introduction: Author and Date). Jesus, as firstborn and breadwinner of the family before He started His ministry, did not give the responsibility to His brothers because they were not sympathetic to His ministry nor did they believe in Him (7:3-5) and they likely were not present at the time (i.e., their home was in Capernaum–see 2:12).

Saw that later once I posted.

Artful explanation there … speculative as is John of Zebedee being Jesus’ first cousin on Mary’s side I suppose. (If either is a bit MORE than speculation … or opinions or from writings from the time I’d like to hear them).

Actually, even if the (shall we agree on the term half-brothers?) were from Joseph’s side of the family … and older … then “first cousin” John, through Mary who was actually “blood” to Him … might have been Jesus’ closest blood relative technically.

Still, even with the explanation above, it would have LOOKED like to some that the “brothers or sisters” (who seemed more closely related) were slighted or "passed over.* "

Which was a bit inconsistent from Jesus’ forgiving “them” for “Knowing not …” what they did. Them being (forgiveness of all including): Caiaphas, Pilate, the people who cried out “give us Barrabas” and “Crucify HIM …” and US … (but the brothers and sisters - singled out for demerits at the same time)?

Even if His statements to Mary and John had nothing to do with the others it could not but be noticed that John took her into his care (and they did not). Deduction again I guess.
In a “Proof text” contest who knows if she stayed with one of these others at times … but
we know she stayed with John for sure.

• No Jewish Passover joke nor reference to Fredo Corleone’s complaint to Michael intended (though noted).

 

[jrtrent]

I wrote, “The Bible makes some things very clear, but others (yes, even baptism and the eucharist) are not so well defined. The logical conclusion I find now is that if it was God’s desire that everyone now worship in exactly the same way, the Bible would provide more explicit detail on how to do that.” And you replied:

Confused. The bible is not what Jesus left the world with to discern truth, as per the holy bible - correct? If it were then Jesus would have to guide each and every person… each individual would be moved by the holy spirit to properly discern truth but that is not scriptural at all.

Well yes, I did have the Bible in mind. What I’m thinking is that if all these points of dispute are so terribly important, it would not have needed each individual to be moved by the Holy Spirit for everyone to agree, but simply a more explicit passage in scripture. For example, different churches have different beliefs about the mode of baptism, but there wouldn’t be this difference if there was a passage in the Bible saying they had to re-baptize poor Fred because he hadn’t been completely immersed three times. We wouldn’t have disagreement on infant baptism if one of the “household” stories had included a phrase like, “even the infants Dick and Jane were baptized.” If, at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Christ had added, “You do realize I’m speaking metaphorically, don’t you?” then disputes over the real presence would have been avoided.

Concerning the eating of meats and the observance of days…? Agreed. The holy Eucharist however, he was quite adamant about discerning the Body of Christ.

I realize that the eating of meats and the observance of days that Romans 14 is talking about are not on the order of what you call essential doctrinal truth, but even the phrase “not discerning the body of the Lord” is open to various interpretations. The footnote in my Haydock Bible says this demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, but other commentators don’t see that in it. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner is clearly commanded in this passage, but the examples of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli indicate that there is room to disagree on exactly what is taking place.

You ever read Scott Hahn? He was instrumental in my conversion, among others. He seems pretty smart and genuinely honest.

Do you have a recommended first book or two? Looking at the titles, Scripture Matters seems interesting, but maybe there’s a better place to start.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in RED

Bible Family Connections

Mary
Daughter of Joachim and Anne
Wife of Joseph
Mother of Jesus
Aunt of Apostle James the Greater and Apostle John

Salome of Zebedee
“Sister” of Mary, mother of Jesus < I’d heard this before. Tradition? Sources? Don’t doubt it, just curious.
Wife of Zebedee
Mother of Apostles James the Greater and John
Aunt of Jesus If she’s Mary’s sister, yes.

Mary of Clopas
Wife of Clopas/Alpheus
Mother of James the Lesser/Younger, Joses/Joseph, Simon and Jude And the mysterious “sisters”? This accounts for most.

Mary Magdalene
Sister of Lazarus and Martha < This one the same Mary for sure? They lived in Bethany and Mary came from Magdala … both were close to Jesus in the Gospels … were Mary of Magdala (Magdalen) and Mary of Bethany the same person?

I was in a Passion Play once where this was put forth as the case (with Mary breaking the flask of expensive oil and annointing Him with it - in Bethany with Judas complaining). I wondered about it then. But then there was Mary Magdalen (and some others) coming to annoint Jesus again on Easter morning so … I had to think about it. Have any more info or insights on this (slightly off topic) detail?

James the Greater
Son of Zebedee and Salome
Brother of Apostle John
A “son of thunder”
Martyred in 42 AD by Herod (Acts 12)

James the Lesser/Younger
Son of Alpheus/Clopas and Mary
Brother of Joseph, Jude, Simon
“Brother of the Lord” (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3, Gal. 2:19)
Bishop of Jerusalem

James
Author of the Book of James

Appreciate what you did here Randy. Not nitpicking, just curious about these thought provoking details and the details about them that I don’t yet know.