Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[cheezey]

I am getting a headache over something to which I was not a first hand witness…
everyone has me reeling back and forth. What kills me is the fact that one post gave me an ‘a HA!’ moment, reeling me in to a definitive decision, for lack of a better word. That was so many posts/debates/reelings ago, I can’t find it. And it was too tempting not to view the retort the first time around and so I read on. A mistake, obviously.
In the end, it Christ and His Love for us.

 

[tabycat]

Hmmmm… Nobady refers to the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus as the child/childern of Mary.

 

[cheezey]

a HA!!! a most excellent, and succinct I might add, point…

 

[adrift]

jrtrent had already posted their 4 point conclusion on this thread and I had responded back at post 72 with:

note how the authors emphasis the “without doubt”…it means that, in the opinion of those scholars, the New Testament identified them with less than absolute clarity as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary. (For example at pp 86-87 they acknowledge that the “not until” verse when coupled with what is said in chapters 12 & 13 creates the likelihood that Matthew believed that Mary and Joseph had other kids together)…it wasn’t expressly said, but it sure is the likely understanding

I am confused about your answer

Pulling out “without doubt” looses the context. I don’t see an emphasis.

it cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

The way the sentence reads that You can’t say that the NT identifies them as blood brothers and sisters because it is doubtful and therefore it is doubtful that they are children of Mary. The last sentence

it wasn’t expressly said, but it sure is the likely understanding

contradicts what was said before. Was that your conclusion? Because if so what you have provided doesn’t support it.

 

[adrift]

yes…a number. What seems to be often missed by Catholics when considering the PVof M is that it has three pieces to it:

1. Ante partum
2. In partu, and
3. post partum

Fail to have any one of those three and the PVofM is lost.

1. Before birth would destroy the entire Christian faith as would two. What you are really concerned with is three.

Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius wrote:
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.

Notice how it written “who is said” This is not a testament that he was a uterine brother.

(Church History by Eusebius, 3:20.1). At 4:22.4 Hegesippus is quoted as saying:
The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.
…and so the weak “he said brother when he meant cousin b/c the language he wasn’t using didn’t have a word for cousin” argument can’t even be raised in this case, because the author uses the word for cousin, when he meant cousin.

These were not the writers of the Gospel. It is not certain that he quoted him verbatim. By the time Eusebius was writing the usage of brother would not have been used in the same way. Note that he Says that Symeon was the the son of the Uncle Clopas who was Identified as the brother of Joseph. A brother of Joseph would be a step uncle. Yet he is identified as cousin. What language did Hegeippus and Eusebius speak? Today we would say that Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Does that then make it a weak argument to say that the was referred to by Abraham as a brother? Of course not. Just because we use the word nephew or cousin does not change the point that when it is used in the New Testament it does not mean that it is a child of Mary and Joseph.

 

[Radical]

1. Before birth would destroy the entire Christian faith as would two. What you are really concerned with is three.

#2 is not important for the Christian faith…other than the CC’s claim of infallibility rests on its truthfulness. It is interesting to note that Jesus is described (by Luke) as the one who opened Mary’s womb and that would negate the possibility of virginity in partu if taken literally…yet another case where you Catholics need this Christian gentile to be using OT Hebrew terminology…kinda too much of a stretch.

Just because we use the word nephew or cousin does not change the point that when it is used in the New Testament it does not mean that it is a child of Mary and Joseph.

You can’t point to one instance in the NT where “brother” is used to describe someone who is known to be a cousin and if you are honest, then you would have to admit that the normal meaning of Adelphos is “blood brother”.

 

[Radical]

I am confused about your answer

Pulling out “without doubt” looses the context. I don’t see an emphasis.

it is in itallics in the original.

The way the sentence reads that You can’t say that the NT identifies them as blood brothers and sisters because it is doubtful and therefore it is doubtful that they are children of Mary. The last sentence contradicts what was said before. Was that your conclusion? Because if so what you have provided doesn’t support it.

they are not, on a basis that is without doubt, identified as Jesus’ blood brothers…said another way, on a basis that has some doubt, they are identifed as Jesus’ blood brothers…said yet another way, the evidence doesn’t satisfy the standard of proof required in a criminal trial such that there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever, but that doesn’t mean that the standard of proof required in a civil trial (balance of probabilities) has not been met.

 

[Erich]

to again point out what someone has already told you:

all that those posts establish is that Jesus’s uterine brothers are not included within the 12 disciples.

You have been shown – from Scripture – that there are no brothers of Jesus who are sons of Mary and Joseph, yet you persist in your unbelief. Consider the following, from another thread:

Tantum_ergo:

Also, consider that Jesus is the Son of God. He is the legitimate Son of God.

Did God stop being the Father of Jesus? No. Since God is the legitimate father and Mary the legitimate mother, the only way for Mary to take ‘another’ husband without commiting adultery would be if God wasn’t really the legitimate Father or that He ‘divorced’ Mary.

OR, if Mary had REALLY been planning to marry and consummate the marriage with Joseph, what does that make God? It makes God the kind of God who like the Greek and Roman gods beds human women, has ‘half-human/half God’ offspring and then casts the woman aside as not ‘good’ enough for Olympus. It makes God into the kind of God who takes Mary to be the mother of HIS child and CUCKOLDING Joseph.

Is it FAIR of God to take a woman who was promised and intended to marry another man, impregnate her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, I’ve used her the way I want, NOW you can have her after me?” Is it fair to the relationship of a man and woman who planned to have ‘regular’ sexual relations to have the woman raising (as the man’s) the child of ANOTHER man and expect their lives to ‘go on as planned?’

Is it fair of God to play around with the love of a man and woman, which is what it would have been if Mary had planned to have a ‘sexual’ marriage with Joseph?

Is it fair to JESUS for God to use His mother as an ‘incubator’ and then leave Jesus as a huge reminder to Joseph, always feeling ‘apart’ from the ‘other kids’ who would be both Mary’s and Joseph’s? To put Joseph in the shoes of having to raise "the son of God’ and have that child (who was not Joseph’s ‘own’) always be considered as the oldest son, the heir, while the younger boys who ‘were’ Joseph’s ‘own’ would not have their true rights as the REAL ‘sons’ of Joseph?? How do you think those children would feel about their brother? Would they even really believe He was the son of God, and not some ‘lie’ foisted by Mary onto their father? How would they view their mother --as somebody who tried to lie and cheat and raise some ‘bastard’ above them and take their legal rights and status, take all the attention?

NOT exactly the kind of family you would think that God would want for any child, let alone that by your thinking God would have PLANNED to cuckold Joseph, rob Joseph’s ‘own’ children of their legal rights, and put them in the position of being party to what would have been lies (Jesus was NOT ‘the son of the carpenter’ or the ‘oldest child’, Mary would have been viewed as a slut, the children’s status even when the truth ‘came out’ would have been even WORSE than before). . .

Whereas by the grace of God and the testimony and the grace accorded by the Holy Spirit who LEADS US TO ALL TRUTH – the understanding of the truth --that God did NOT cuckold Joseph, that there were no ‘other children’ who would be robbed of their rights and would be made miserable–we have a situation where Joseph is shown to be a righteous, chaste, and WORTHY foster father to the ONE child for whom he freely takes on responsibility ‘on earth’. . .we have Mary’s love not divided between ‘God’ and ‘earthly’ but fully given to God and SUPPORTED by Joseph–we have Jesus not overshadowing and robbing his brothers and sisters or being unfairly elevated, but living with a father and mother who could devote themselves to GOD and His Son without anything coming between.

It’s so much more reasonable a picture–and it’s also the picture that has been presented through Christianity over the last 2000 years and endorsed by greater thinkers than any of us here –

in fact, the idea that Joseph and Mary were sexually ‘intimate’ was not even a concept which the first PROTESTANTS believed as is shown by the fact that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is very much a ‘modern’ idea based on the hypersexualization of our culture along with the often unconscious desire to try to make Mary (and Joseph, and even Jesus) into more ‘human’ people, i.e., people ‘just like us’. . .and to dismiss as ‘absurd’ ideas such as perpetual virginity, continence, and giving ‘all’ to God instead of living a ‘normal’ life and giving Him anything ‘left over’ when and if it suits us too. . .

As I said earlier, the Bible is an excellent TOOL but it is not self-interpreting nor is it our AUTHORITY. There is a lot the Bible never tells us (what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 30, for example), and that’s because it doesn’t HAVE to. The Church has the authority to teach (and the Church’s teachings will not CONTRADICT Scripture and in fact the perpetual virginity does NOT contradict Scripture in any way). . .but it doesn’t HAVE to tell us WHY, WHEN, WHERE and HOW as if it were discussing a movie of the week about Mary’s perpetual virginity, complete with touching backstory and ‘guaranteed proof from eyewitness reports’. The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, it’s in the catechism, it’s in the teachings spread back over the centuries because that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted to have us taught.

 

[Patavium]

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “THE son of Mary” (Mk 6:3), not as “A son of Mary”. The Greek expression implies he is her ONLY son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s SONS, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren”. If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

That would mean that the closest in age when Jesus was beginning His ministry would be 17 and that would be if Mary was pregnant when Jesus was 12. The break between pregnancies would be about two years so that would mean that the siblings would be 17 15 13 11 19 and 7. Very unlikely that these sibling would behave as described in the Bible. Trying to seize Jesus or giving Jesus advise. Nah! not a plausible explanation.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[adrift]

#2 is not important for the Christian faith…other than the CC’s claim of infallibility rests on its truthfulness. It is interesting to note that Jesus is described (by Luke) as the one who opened Mary’s womb and that would negate the possibility of virginity in partu if taken literally.…yet another case where you Catholics need this Christian gentile to be using OT Hebrew terminology…kinda too much of a stretch.

I am not quite certain what you are saying: What I have bolded, are you saying that giving birth takes away virginity? If that is so, you and I have a different definition of virginity. Virginity is not having sex.

You can’t point to one instance in the NT where “brother” is used to describe someone who is known to be a cousin and if you are honest, then you would have to admit that the normal meaning of Adelphos is “blood brother”.

If you were honest, you would have to admit that in Scripture brother has a multitude of meanings. Can you point to a person in the New Testament that is known to be a cousin?
Post 16 and 52 point out well where “brother” is used to describe someone who is known to be a cousin

 

[adrift]

they are not, on a basis that is without doubt, identified as Jesus’ blood brothers…said another way, on a basis that has some doubt, they are identified as Jesus’ blood brothers…said yet another way, the evidence doesn’t satisfy the standard of proof required in a criminal trial such that there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever, but that doesn’t mean that the standard of proof required in a civil trial (balance of probabilities) has not been met.

In a civil trial, a preponderance of evidence is all that is needed. That is it is more likely than not. The evidence is on the side of not.

1. Mary’s question to the Angel. I have yet to hear a reasonable response.
2. No mention of other children when Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem to look for Jesus.
3. The way that His “brothers” treat Him. They treat Him as younger person not an older brother.
4. The Identification of His being The son not a son of Mary.
5. The Giving of Mary to John which would go against the culture. There would be no reason, if Mary had other children, that they would have to be at the cross. Jesus would know that they would automatically have the obligation of taking care of their mother. Nor would it make a difference if they were a believer in Jesus. They would have been a believer in the Jewish obligation to take care of their mother.
6. That brother had the following meanings:

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
2. any fellow or man
3. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
4. an associate in employment or office
5. brethren in Christ: all men apostles, Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place.
   Where as on the other side you have

1. Scripture that has some being called the brothers and sisters of Christ of those mentioned by name prove to be children of other parents.
2. The word until (very week argument that has to go against the meaning of the word to force another meaning.)

The scale does not tip to Mary having other children.

 

[Good_Fella]

Why is Mary’s perpetual virginity such a big deal? **I understand Jesus was an only child, but what if he hadn’t been? How would that change God’s salvation plan? **I admit it’s a little startling when you hear Christians casually refer to Jesus’ brothers as if it were a well-established fact.

If Jesus hadn’t been Mary’s only child, our perception of God should change. It is no coincidence that God chose to overshadow a woman who had no children (daughters) of her own in wedlock when he sent the angel Gabriel to Mary, unless one wishes to believe God could dismiss his own precepts in the Torah and consequently negate his own righteousness. Joseph certainly understood that he was morally forbidden by Mosaic law to have children with Mary once she conceived Jesus by another Person.

I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord.
Hosea 2, 19-20
*
When I passed by you again, I looked at you, and noticed that it was your proper time for love. I spread my cloak over you* to cover your nakedness. I made a solemn promise to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the LORD God. You belong to me.
*Ezekiel 16, 8 *

“I am your handmaid Ruth,” she said. "Spread the corner of your cloak over me, since you are my next of kin."
Ruth 3, 9

Then Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God."
*Luke 1, 34-35 *

PAX
:heaven:

 

[adrift]

This was posted on another site. Same discussion we are having here.

Re: the argument; There was no word for cousin

Luke 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:58
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

This is from Luke and I believe he was a greek so maybe that explains the cousin word?

In both of these scriptures the Greek word used was suggenes which meant 1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. It should not be translated as cousin which would either be ksádelfos or ksádelfi. Relatives or kinsmen is a more correct translation. I don’t think there is anywhere that cousin is used in Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
… which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

Radical: the protoevangelium isn’t that early

But it is sure a lot older than the Protestant argument by many centuries.

 

[Good_Fella]

If the James mentioned in the book of Acts at the council wasindeed the Lord’s brother, he must have had a miraculous conversion. Conspicuous by his absence at the cross, then leading a council. And yet, not one of the Gospel writers ever mentions this important conversion.

Jesus certainly would have foreseen this conversion and thus would have asked John to take his mother to the home of his younger brother James for him to look after her as was the Jewish custom.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[adrift]

A look at the three synoptic gospels would have disclosed that the brothers of Jesus are mentioned on a couple of occasions. On the one occasion (Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) the 12 are mentioned(Mark 3:13-19),…Jesus entered a house with his disciples(Mark 3:20)… after which Jesus’s mother and brothers arrive and are outside the house(Mark 3:31-35). As such, the disciples named Simon(2), James(2) and Judas(2) were inside with Jesus whilst Jesus’s brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are outside with Mary and her daughters.

I have read each of these scriptures and I do not see any names mentioned.

 

[cheezey]

I have read each of these scriptures and I do not see any names mentioned.

if you are referring to Jesus’ "brothers’ " names: James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas
Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19
Matthew 13:56: “and sisters”

 

[adrift]

if you are referring to Jesus’ "brothers’ " names: James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas
Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19
Matthew 13:56: “and sisters”

I am referring to the passages he was quoting.

(Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) the 12 are mentioned(Mark 3:13-19),…Jesus entered a house with his disciples(Mark 3:20)… after which Jesus’s mother and brothers arrive and are outside the house(Mark 3:31-35). As such, the disciples named Simon(2), James(2) and Judas(2) were inside with Jesus whilst Jesus’s brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are outside with Mary and her daughters.

These passages only say family without naming them.

 

[Good_Fella]

if you are referring to Jesus’ "brothers’ " names: James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas
Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19
Matthew 13:56: “and sisters”

"Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brothers called James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Matthew 13, 55

James the son of Alphaeus, and **Thaddaeus (Judas). **Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.
Matthew 10, 3-4

"Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mark 6, 3

Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (Judas), and Simon the Zealot.
*Mark 3, 18 *

Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; Judas the son of James (Thaddaeus), and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
Luke 6, 15-16

But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1, 19

If we look at the Gospel of Mark, we will notice that the apostles James, Judas (Thaddaeus), and Simon are listed in the same order as the brothers of Jesus are by the Jews in the crowd. This is because they are referred to according to their ages from eldest to youngest brother in proper sequence. James is the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Judas and Simon are his younger brothers making the three of them cousins of Jesus. Luke calls Judas the son of James which is another way of saying that the two of them were brothers by the same father Alphaeus with James being the elder brother. Although Simon was the youngest brother of the three, Matthew (13:55) and Luke place his name after James and before Judas. This is probably done out of reverence for Simon who succeeded his elder brother James as bishop of Jerusalem. Paul refers to James the son of Alphaeus (James the Lesser) in his Letter to the Galatians. So by using the word “brother”, he means either cousin or one of the original twelve apostles as distinguished from all apostles in general. I find it hard to believe that Jesus had siblings who had not only the same names as these sons of Alphaeus, but also ranked from eldest to youngest in the same order as they had. It’s more likely the brothers of Jesus referred to by the Jews in the crowd are no other than his apostles and cousins. The Jews in the crowd originally spoke in Aramaic, which has no word for cousin. Meanwhile the sisters of our Lord would be female relatives and kinfolk. In ancient semitic usage, the word sister (achoth) did not strictly apply to female siblings. King Solomon affectionately called his spouse “sister” (Songs 4:12).

PAX
:heaven:

 

[adrift]

Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (Judas), and Simon the Zealot.
*Mark 3, 18 *

Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; Judas the son of James (Thaddaeus), and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
Luke 6, 15-16

But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1, 19

If we look at the Gospel of Mark, we will notice that the apostles James, Judas (Thaddaeus), and Simon are listed in the same order as the brothers of Jesus are by the Jews in the crowd. This is because they are referred to according to their ages from eldest to youngest brother in proper sequence. James is the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Judas and Simon are his younger brothers making the three of them cousins of Jesus. Luke calls Judas the son of James which is another way of saying that the two of them were brothers by the same father Alphaeus with James being the elder brother. Although Simon was the youngest brother of the three, Matthew (13:55) and Luke place his name after James and before Judas. This is probably done out of reverence for Simon who succeeded his elder brother James as bishop of Jerusalem. Paul refers to James the son of Alphaeus (James the Lesser) in his Letter to the Galatians. So by using the word “brother”, he means either cousin or one of the original twelve apostles as distinguished from all apostles in general. I find it hard to believe that Jesus had siblings who had not only the same names as these sons of Alphaeus, but also ranked from eldest to youngest in the same order as they had. It’s more likely the brothers of Jesus referred to by the Jews in the crowd are no other than his apostles and cousins. The Jews in the crowd originally spoke in Aramaic, which has no word for cousin. Meanwhile the sisters of our Lord would be female relatives and kinfolk. In ancient semitic usage, the word sister (achoth) did not strictly apply to female siblings. King Solomon affectionately called his spouse “sister” (Songs 4:12).

PAX
:heaven:

What Radical was trying to do was say that the brothers named in Scripture coincidentally had the same names as the Apostles. He was saying that these named brethren were outside while the same named Apostles were inside. But there is nothing in Scripture to substantiate that claim.