Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[joe370]

everything we need to know in order to be saved is found in the gospel of John…but not only there

Couldn’t it be possible that Jesus’ brothers were in fact His brothers, but only sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, i.e. Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time he married Mary? He could have had children from his first marriage and those children would have been older than Jesus which would certainly explain their doubt and disbelief in some cases?

“Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

 

[Good_Fella]

Or possibly step-brothers. Christians who believe that Mary was ever virgin have more than one theory to account for the “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in scripture. As this excerpt credited to Catholic Answers says, “If we accept the theory put forth in the Protoevangelium of James and accepted by many in the early Church, Jesus’ brothers would be stepbrothers, sons of Joseph but not of Mary. . . It is certainly possible for Catholics to believe that Joseph did not have children of his own. In this case, the brothers of Jesus could be other relatives, such as cousins.” catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6956

Unfortunately many Church Fathers (mostly in the East) believed St. Joseph had children from a previous marriage. And because they did, we musn’t assume that it was true. A personal theological opinion is not an official teaching of the Church. That Joseph was a widower who had children from a previous marriage is just a tale with no Scriptural support. Virtually all the legends of St. Joseph can be found in six apocryphal sources. The stories contained in these texts are derived from oral traditions that at some point became distorted and embellished as word spread from mouth to mouth. The same can be said of the stories about Jesus’ hidden life in apocryphal works. But the apocrypha do not belong to the deposit of faith: sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. As I pointed out above, James, Judas, and Simon are more likely the sons of Alphaeus and thereby Jesus’ cousins and apostles, whose names we find together in the lists of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels.

Joe370 noted that “For some reason the topic of Mary rubs some protestants the wrong way.” If the 25 pages or so of comment in this thread is typical, it isn’t the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary that rubs people the wrong way. After all, many Protestants share this belief and, based on commentaries from several Protestant traditions, most would at least acknowledge it as a possibility. What may rub people the wrong way is when Catholics purport to prove one or more of their points from scripture when in fact they are offering just one possible interpretation (e.g., the oft-repeated claim that there were just two apostles named James) or when they claim that the belief that Mary and Joseph had children of their own necessarily denigrates Mary, Joseph, and/or Jesus.

Actually no Catholic doctrine has ever originated by first gleaning the Scriptures. They have all begun through the spoken word. For us Catholics, Scripture serves to confirm what we believe is true according to sacred Tradition, and so the written texts must be interpreted in light of Tradition from whence the written word proceeds. At this point we enter the realm of ecclessiology and depart on a different topic though connected.

Catholics can rightly state that Mary was ever virgin by simply saying that this is what their church teaches, and can offer, as the Catholic Answers excerpt above indicates, more than one way to counter those who think the Bible “proves” that Mary had other children. To go beyond that seems to me a parallel to the OP’s original complaint, “It seems to me the documentation of the various interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” in the New Testament would mean that, at the most, the churches would be teaching the various theories and not asserting that Jesus had brothers as a fact.”

That Jesus had no siblings has never been a theory for Catholics , but a corollary of his mother being ever-virgin, which has been always known from the beginning through the faithful transmission of the spoken word (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians XlX.4-6: c.A.D. 107). We do not believe that this is what “our” church teaches as opposed to some other churches, but rather this is what “the” Church has always believed and taught. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was an article of faith for centuries even before the Church finally decided which books should be listed in the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century. And at that time there was but One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

PAX

 

[PRmerger]

Actually no Catholic doctrine has ever originated by first gleaning the Scriptures. They have all begun through the spoken word. For us Catholics, Scripture serves to confirm what we believe is true according to sacred Tradition, and so the written texts must be interpreted in light of Tradition from whence the written word proceeds

Exactly. Catholics do not extract their doctrines from the Scriptures. Rather, the Scriptures confirm and affirm that which the Apostles and their successors were proclaiming in the kerygma.

 

[Nicea325]

What one must remember is the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and there is a distinctly different word for cousin: anepsios; whereas brother is adelphos and sister is adelphē; therefore as written Jesus did indeed have siblings.

Really? Show me one single verse clearly stating Mary gave birth to other children? Show me and I’ll convert as a Protestant. Funny how Jesus was referred to “the” son of Joseph & Mary…yet not as…“a” son of Joseph & Mary.

 

[Radical]

Your two posts are nicely presented. Was this original material or did you find it online somewhere? Just curious.

I’m to blame…one thing I have noticed during my sojourn here: …the Catholics here complain quite a bit about the anti-Catholic sites, but if one searches a topic such as the PVof M, it seems that there are at least 10 pro sites for every 1 anti site…the online resources for us protestants could be a lot better as far as the “Catholic issues” are concerned.

Your argument seems to boil down to this: In Galatians 1:19, Paul refers to “James, the Lord’s brother”, and this James was not a member of the Twelve, but was an apostle in the sense that Paul, Barnabas and others were apostles.

it isn’t just Paul…every NT author that mentions a brother or brothers of Jesus makes a distinction between the 12 and the brethren. It is 4 for 4. Further, James the Just had a considerable reputation…he even merits mention by Josephus…with that type of reputation, exactly at the time that the tradition that went into the gospels was being circulated, one should very much expect that if James the brother of the Lord was one of the 12, then he should have been referred to as such by one of the authors who provided a list of the 12.

In response, I’ll quote a length from the Wikipedia article on James the Just:

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – 339) reports the tradition that James the Just was the son of Joseph’s brother Clopas and therefore was of the “brethren” (which he interprets as “cousin”) of Jesus described in the New Testament.

could you please help me out with this. I can find this in Eusebius:

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph… Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.

but I can’t find what your source claims is there…I can’t help noting how James is referred to as the brother and Symeon is referred to as a cousin.

This is echoed by Jerome (c. 342 – 419) in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) – James is said to be the son of another Mary, wife of Clopas…

rather than looking at wikipedia, you might be better served by reading Lightfoot’s The Brethren of the Lord

My question is this: Is it your belief that this James (known as the Just) was elevated to the position of leader of the Church in Jerusalem after being an unbeliever throughout most if not all of the Gospel narrative? That’s quite a turnaround, don’t you think?

yeah it is…sorta similar to Saul’s/Paul’s

No one else who had been a believer from the beginning was available to take the job? It’s possible, I suppose, but there doesn’t appear to be much support for your position from the annals of history.

do you mean the annals of history as presented by wikipedia? Lightfoot gives a breakdown of the support for the 3 main positions in the early church…it looks like this:

The table following gives a conspectus of the patristic and early authorities.

A. Sons of Joseph and Mary: Tertullian; Helvidius; Bonosus; Jovinianus (?); Antidicomarianites.

B. Sons of Joseph by a former wife: Gospel of Peter; Protevangelium etc.; Clement of Alex; Origen; Eusebius; Hilary of Poitiers; Ambrosiaster; Gregory of Nyssa; Epiphanius; Ambrose; [Chrysostom]; Cyril of Alex.; Eastern Services (Greek, Syrian, and Coptic); Later Greek Writers.

C. Sons of the Virgin"s Sister: Jerome; Pelagius; Augustine; [Chrysostom]; Theodoret; Western Services; Later Latin Writers.

A. or B. “Brethren” in a strict sense. James the Just not one of the Twelve: Early Versions; Clementine Homilies (?); Ascents of James; Hegesippus; Apost. Constitu.; Cyril of Jerusalem (?); Victorinus the Philosopher.

B. or C. Perpetual virginity of Mary: Basil; Catholic Writers Generally.

Uncertain: Hebrew Gospel; Victorinus Petavionensis.

…just in case you are interested in history

 

[joe370]

Really? Show me one single verse clearly stating Mary gave birth to other children? Show me and I’ll convert as a Protestant. Funny how Jesus was referred to “the” son of Joseph & Mary…yet not as…“a” son of Joseph & Mary.

There is none. Radical and others have already admitted that there is no way to know with any degree of certainty, and they are correct. It really comes down to personal faith, in terms of belief, due to the fact that scripture is not explicitly clear on the matter.

 

[Radical]

There is none. Radical and others have already admitted that there is no way to know with any degree of certainty, and they are correct.

that isn’t quite right…one can reach the degree of certainty that is founded on a balance of probabilities, but cannot reach the degree of certainty that is beyond all reasonable doubt.

It really comes down to personal faith, in terms of belief, due to the fact that scripture is not explicitly clear on the matter.

if this was the only instance where, based on a balance of probabilities, Catholic doctrine/dogma was shown (IMHO) to be in error, then I would be prepared to swallow that one instance, and like you assume that the Catholic Magisterium was infallible…but it isn’t. IMHO there are quite a number of doctrines/dogmas where, on a balance of probablilities, error is evident. The cummulative effect of those likelihoods renders the whole thing (the fallibility of the Magisterium) beyond a reasonable doubt and once that obstacle is put aside, then there seems to be no good reason to give tradition the benefit of the doubt and believe in the PVof M…just in case you were wondering how my faith was formed.

 

[rellanor]

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

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.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

 

[joe370]

Radical;10171718]that isn’t quite right…one can reach the degree of certainty that is founded on a balance of probabilities, but cannot reach the degree of certainty that is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Exactly. There is no way to prove what you are suggesting; that’s all I meant. You choose to embrace the idea, and I do not. What makes logical sense to you (as opposed to relying on verifiable facts) does not to me; that’s cool. Ultimately, we have reached an impasse.

if this was the only instance where, based on a balance of probabilities, Catholic doctrine/dogma was shown (IMHO) to be in error, then I would be prepared to swallow that one instance, and like you assume that the Catholic Magisterium was infallible…but it isn’t.

I know that is what you believe. You believe that no teaching office, be it protestant or catholic, can teach infallibly, and therefore there is no reason to believe either, in terms of truth passed down from Jesus, to the apostles etc. etc…

IMHO there are quite a number of doctrines/dogmas where, on a balance of probablilities, error is evident.

But not verifibly knowable. Agreed.

The cummulative effect of those likelihoods renders the whole thing (the fallibility of the Magisterium) beyond a reasonable doubt and once that obstacle is put aside, then there seems to be no good reason to give tradition the benefit of the doubt…

If that is true then it seems fair to say: “The cumulative effect of those likelihoods renders the whole thing (the fallibility of the Magisterium) beyond a reasonable doubt and once that obstacle is put aside, then there seems to be no good reason to give [scripture] the benefit of the doubt.” Makes sense to me, from your perspective…

 

[Good_Fella]

To my comment that there are differences among Christians about issues that cannot be proven one way or another from scripture, you responded … Unfortunately, such an entity does not exist.

According to the Scriptures, such an indefectible entity does exist. In fact, it was prophesied by Isaiah.

A highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Holy Way;
the unclean shall not travel on it,
but it shall be for God’s people;
no travelers, not even fools, shall go astray.
Isaiah 35, 8

But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.
Acts 24, 14

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these intstructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt the mystery of our religion is great.
1 Timothy 3, 15-16

Although I am the least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the Church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 3, 8-10

An alternative to that is the acceptance and tolerance of different beliefs Paul wrote about in Romans 14

This text pertains to the question of religious practice and the exercise of discipline among the faithful - not universal doctrines belonging to the deposit of faith. Doctrinal unity was something St. Paul regarded as vitally essential for the integrity of the Church.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Ephesians 4, 4-5

Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side in one mind for the faith of the gospel, and are in no way intimidated by your opponents.
Philippians 1, 27-28

Neeless to say, St. Paul warned the Romans about the false teachings of dissenters who were confusing the faithful and creating division among them with their unorthodox doctrines, and he exhorted them to hold on to what was traditionally handed down by the authentic apostolic teaching authority of the Church.

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teachings you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
Romans 16, 17-18

St. Paul certainly acknowledged the need for a universal central teaching authority which could be traced back to the apostles through valid ordination for the preservation of doctrinal unity in the Church.

*Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the vain chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.
1 Timothy 6, 20-21

I left you in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you … For a bishop, as God’s steward, should be blameless … He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.
Titus 1, 5-9*

PAX

 

[joe370]

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Also, there is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Scripture reveals nothing in an explicit manner.

Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word

Clearly not clear and unambiguous based on scripture. You seem to be arguing that the natural inference from the word, until, is that Joseph and Mary afterwards, lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Scholars (protestants too) claim that that simply means: some action did not happen up to a certain point; in no way does it have to imply that the action occurred later, which would be the modern sense of the term. Let’s embrace the modern sense, in terms of another scriptural passage and compare the two; more examples can be provided for comparison:

“He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”

Therefore Mary must have had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. OK.

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” 2 Sam. 6:23

By the same logic Michal therefore had children after her death? Hmm…

 

[Radical]

Ultimately, we have reached an impasse.

agreed…and unfortunately it is an impasse that will keep your separated brethren separated

If that is true then it seems fair to say: “The cumulative effect of those likelihoods renders the whole thing (the fallibility of the Magisterium) beyond a reasonable doubt and once that obstacle is put aside, then there seems to be no good reason to give [scripture] the benefit of the doubt.” Makes sense to me, from your perspective…

the difference is that, if the doubt is regarding the apostolic origin of the thing, then you need the Magisterium to bridge the gap from the first ECF who endorses the PVof M (all 3 aspects of it) back to the apostles…and that is quite a long bridge which passes the Protoevangelium on the way. On the other hand, wrt books like 1st Corinthians, I don’t need the Magisterium to provide a bridge at all…the letter was written by an apostle himself and that fact is not dependent on any confirmation by any group of bishops.

 

[joe370]

Good Fella
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these intstructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt the mystery of our religion is great.
1 Timothy 3, 15-16

Although I am the least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the Church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 3, 8-10

Not sure why protestants disregard these passages.

 

[joe370]

Radical;10171815]agreed…and unfortunately it is an impasse that will keep your separated brethren separated

Separated from the protestant brethren? Sadly, I tend to agree.

the difference is that, if the doubt is regarding the apostolic origin of the thing, then you need the Magisterium to bridge the gap from the first ECF who endorses the PVof M (all 3 aspects of it) back to the apostles…and that is quite a long bridge which passes the Protoevangelium on the way. On the other hand, wrt books like 1st Corinthians, I don’t need the Magisterium to provide a bridge at all…the letter was written by an apostle himself and that fact is not dependent on any confirmation by any group of bishops.

Hmm…Please prove that Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, Mark wrote Mark, John wrote John, Paul wrote Hebrews etc.without any outside confirmation? Also where did the NT table of contents come from?

booksSo you know

 

[PRmerger]

On the other hand, wrt books like 1st Corinthians, I don’t need the Magisterium to provide a bridge at all…the letter was written by an apostle himself and that fact is not dependent on any confirmation by any group of bishops.

The Gospel of Barnabas was written by an apostle. Why do you not consider it inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Ibut I can’t find what your source claims is there…I can’t help noting how James is referred to as the brother and Symeon is referred to as a cousin.

It would be helpful if you could offer any sources that say James, brother of the Lord and “son of Mary” or “son of Joseph”.

 

[PRmerger]

yeah it is…sorta similar to Saul’s/Paul’s

We have the Scriptural evidence for Saul’s conversion.

Do you have the book, chapter and verse for your position that James, brother of the Lord, an unbeliever for the majority of the Lord’s ministry, converted?

 

[joe370]

We have the Scriptural evidence for Saul’s conversion.

Do you have the book, chapter and verse for your position that James, brother of the Lord, an unbeliever for the majority of the Lord’s ministry, converted?

Hmm…That never occurred to me…

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…That never occurred to me…

Yup. It would certainly be an un-Biblical explanation. Something based, perhaps, on tradition, that could be proffered?

But unless there is a Scriptural reference that James, “brother of the Lord” and an unbeliever who was not even given the task of caring for his mother after the death of his brother Jesus, was knocked to the ground spiritually, like Saul, and became a saint and leader of the emerging church…we would have to conclude that this belief is a man-made tradition. Right?

 

[joe370]

Yup. It would certainly be an un-Biblical explanation. Something based, perhaps, on tradition, that could be proffered?

But unless there is a Scriptural reference that James, “brother of the Lord” and an unbeliever who was not even given the task of caring for his mother after the death of his brother Jesus, was knocked to the ground spiritually, like Saul, and became a saint and leader of the emerging church…we would have to conclude that this belief is a man-made tradition. Right?

Interesting…Yeah…

On one hand we have scripture reminding us of how Jesus’ “brothers” questioned and doubted Jesus occasionally, and on the other we have John the apostle who was a devout follower throughout; seems pretty obvious why Jesus might have entrusted His “beloved” apostle John with the care of His mother. Moreover, i can somewhat envision cousins or Jesus’ older brothers from Josephs prior marriage undermining Him, but not His supposed younger brothers…