A
- Status
C
CaptFun
Guest
Thanks for the interesting info.
There are also the 72 he sent out to heal in groups before the crucifixion. For some reason I see the “60 extra people” as “disciples” rather than “apostles” because the latter is used more formally in places and refers to the 12 named. Matthias elected to take Judas’ “office” becomes part of that formal number … and Paul calls himself an apostle at least once.
Disciples too could mean more than just the 72. Apostles are sometimes numbered and called the 12. They outrank the others (in Corinthians Paul puts apostles first) and they are Bishop makers and except for Paul (and Judas if he counts) present at Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit. Mary was there at Pentecost too but never called an apostle.
But when Paul references the “other apostles” (as possibly people thought to outrank him by some) then references “James” as one of these with the further information “brother of the Lord” - the two Jameses of the 12 come to mind. More strongly than a speculated about third James (though the name was common and it is possible I suppose). Anyhow here is the text that came to mind.
Galatians 1: 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
When Paul (who considers himself to be their equal in some respects) later goes to Jerusalem to “confer with Kephas” (Peter, one of the formal 12, and first on all lists of the 12 in scripture when they are listed together). So Paul met with a very heavy apostle and
acknowledged leader – and mentions James as a similar apostle with power and known as a “brother of the Lord.” The two Jameses were the son of Zebedee and of Alphaeus - and the scripture doesn’t say which … or if either as you mention.
Since the thread is about if Jesus had siblings – advanced deductively from the words brothers and sisters in scripture - here is an example of a “brother of the Lord” that would seem to be more likely a “relative” than an adoptive half-brother through Joseph and a previous marriage also not mentioned in scripture – or an ACTUAL (non-divine) half brother of Jesus through Mary and … (Joseph? Another? Scripture of course doesn’t say either - and the Church says she remained a virgin).
Usually it’s the “Mary” argument that gets advanced against Church teaching when these relatives are mentioned as part of a controversy.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The other apostles that Paul did not see except James would be those who were counted among the original twelve together with Peter. So the James Paul mentions as “the brother of the Lord” could not be a sibling of Jesus who eventually converted after Christ’s resurrection as some Protestants contend. James the son of Zebedee had already been martyred by the time Paul wrote this letter, so the James he is referring to can be no other than James the son of Alphaeus (Clopas). Paul was a hellenized Jew, so he could have simply employed a semitic figure of speech when he intended to mean that he saw only the apostle who was a cousin of Jesus besides Peter. Since James was the bishop of Jerusalem, it’s natural that Paul would have seen him there while the other apostles were gone evangelizing beyond the borders of Palestine.
PAX
:heaven:
J
jrtrent
Guest
The OP had written, “I don’t remember ever being taught that Jesus had siblings in the Disciple of Christ church. But my research after this conversation seems to reveal that many or most Protestant churches believe this. Is this true? Are Protestant churches teaching this as fact? 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.”
Given the scriptural references to “brothers” and “sisters” of Christ (referenced many times in this thread), it should be no surprise that some churches and study Bibles teach as fact that Jesus had siblings who were the offspring of Joseph and Mary. I believe, as did the “collaborative assessment” of Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (also referenced several times in this thread), that “the biblical text allows one to identify the so-called “brothers and sisters” as Jesus’ siblings as well as other sorts of close relatives. Thus exegetes may either accept Mary’s post partum (i.e. after Jesus’ birth) virginity–in the literal meaning of the word–or reject it, without having to surrender their intellectual integrity.” (from François Rossier’s article about the work).
Based on the above, the OP might expect all churches to, at most, teach that there are various theories about the references to Christ’s brothers and sisters, but, as you point out, the Catholic Church (among others) teaches that Mary remained a virgin, and I certainly don’t expect them to state that position as anything other than a fact that they believe. Based on the scriptural evidence, other churches reach the conclusion that Mary had other children besides Jesus, so neither do I expect them to state their position as anything other than a fact that they believe. All churches teach what they believe to be the truth, whether it’s regarding various beliefs about Mary or other topics such as infant baptism, the presence of Christ in the elements of communion, predestination vs. free will, the means of grace, various eschatological positions, etc., etc. I expect churches to teach as fact what each believes to be true in these and other issues, and not to present at every turn a list of competing theories (though I would think that in an extended study in a Sunday school class these other ideas could get some treatment).
I have been in churches that teach the perpetual virginity of Mary (though not as a belief required for membership) and in those that don’t. For myself, I believe that Mary had other children, but it’s not important to me if she didn’t. As Loraine Boettner put it, “The Scriptures affirm that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born. Nothing beyond that is needed to safeguard the Deity of Christ and the purity of Mary.”
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Ah yes brings to mind that 
wonderful book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner which was totally debunked by the founder of this website, Karl Keating, with his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
Loraine Boettner’s book is full of untruths and is used to try to weaken the faith of poorly catechized Catholics.
Read Keating’s book, you’ll get a brain full of truth about the Catholic Church and her teachings.
wonderful book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner which was totally debunked by the founder of this website, Karl Keating, with his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism.Loraine Boettner’s book is full of untruths and is used to try to weaken the faith of poorly catechized Catholics.
Read Keating’s book, you’ll get a brain full of truth about the Catholic Church and her teachings.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Miriam, Miriam, Miriam…Ah yes brings to mind that
Loraine Boettner’s book is full of untruths and is used to try to weaken the faith of poorly catechized Catholics.
Read Keating’s book, you’ll get a brain full of truth about the Catholic Church and her teachings.
You stole my post.
Great minds think alike.
Karl Keating turned the lights out on Boettner almost twenty five years ago. What is it about the state of Missouri? Some say it was the Garden of Eden and it was the birthplace and home of Boettner.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I stated that in another post. Even though I’m just an ignorant Catholic, I’m fairly familiar with the scriptures, the authors, etc. Shocking, isn’t it?
As I stated elsewhere, Luke was a Greek and Paul was a Roman citizen. This may be why they were able to use the Greek language in a way that the Aramaic authors could (or did) not.
Nope. Don’t have to choose.
EITHER option supports my position, and you have nothing to disprove either of them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Because God asked her.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And we do not rely on a work of fiction concerning the PPV of Mary.
The same infallible Church which established the canon of scripture containing the story of the Incarnation has established the PPV of Mary.
See, you are trying to put the cart before the horse. Try understanding infallibility, and the rest will be easier for you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, it does. This must be very comforting for you.
Because if it did not happen according to your non-biblical, human way of reasoning, then you are forced to admit that the Catholic Church may be right, and that is troubling to you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Uh, no, this is just basic debate protocol.
The burden of proof is a concept employed in debating, where the standard principle is that the side that “takes the affirmative” must shoulder the burden of proof. In other words, the side in a formal debate that argues that you should believe or do something must produce reasons why.
As a result, the burden of proof changes depending on how you phrase the resolution. To use an X Files analogy, “Resolved: Aliens exist” will place the burden of proof on Agent Mulder; “Resolved: Aliens do not exist” will place it on Agent Scully. The burden falls to whichever debater agrees with the resolution.
In this thread, the affirmative is the position stated in the title of the thread: Jesus had Siblings", and you are arguing that this is true. If this were not a Catholic forum (where I have home court advantage), or if the thread were positively stating that “Jesus was an only child”, then the burden would be on me. But that ain’t the case.
It’s on you, my friend.
J
jrtrent
Guest
Actually, the OP did not offer a resolution, but phrased a question. Even the thread title has a question mark (“Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?”). Here’s the context:
Back on the first page of this thread, there were a few attempts to answer that yes, some Protestant churches teach as fact that Jesus had siblings while other Protestant churches don’t. Whether Jesus did or did not actually have siblings is a side issue, but threads in all forums often veer off into side issues, just like face-to-face conversations often do.
J
joe370
Guest
Speaking strictly from the NT perspective, it cannot be said with absolute certainty, that the NT does or does not identify them as actual blood brothers and sisters of Jesus the Christ, and hence as children of Mary. Of course much can be inferred from scripture, that would lead one to believe that Mary had only one child, namely, God.
It really all comes down to the traditional teachings of ones church, which is sort of strange from a protestant perspective for the simple fact that tradition is rejected in favor of sola scriptura.
A
awantz
Guest
None of the Missionary, Mennonite, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, and non-denominational churches I am/ have attended teach/ taught that Jesus had siblings.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand. However, Radical has answered the question in the affirmative and is attempting to prove that Jesus did not have siblings based upon scriptural evidence.
The burden of proof is on him.
Thanks.
A
adrift
Guest
Did you mean "and is attempting to prove that Jesus** had **siblings based upon scriptural evidence? "
C
CaptFun
Guest
Sounds more likely than the alternatives. Though it is a minor point unless someone is trying to show the Catholic Church is wrong in its teachings (about Mary’s perpetual virginity and that Jesus had no “brothers or sisters” according to the flesh).
C
cheezey
Guest
This is the stumper, and pardon my ignorance, but judging from what’s being posted here, most are presenting their arguments well. But for others, and long before the doctrinal or historical debate, comes the translation of that tiny little 5 letter word: UNTIL…
if brother/cousin/close relative is a translation debate, couldn’t the UNTIL also be a translation debate? And for those of us with various Bibles, some translations - I think!! Remember I am ignorant!! - omit the word “After.”
(When I say ignorant, I ain’t kidding…Oh, and I am not self-effacing…I am marveling at most everyone’s knowledge and capability of debate.) it’s a lot to :juggle: though. For me, anyway…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yeppers.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Scholars on the Meaning of “Until” in Matthew 1:25
One of the most widely respected commentaries on Matthew’s gospel is written by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr. in the very respectable ICC (International Critical Commentary) series. In this work, the contributors say this regarding Matthew 1:25:
“This retrospective observation does not necessarily imply that there were marital relations later on, for heõs (until) following a negative need not contain the idea of a limit which terminates the preceding action or state (cf. Gen. 49.10 Septuagint; Mt 10.23; Mk 9.1).”
While it is true that Davies and Allison go on to question the awkward construction of the verse if indeed Mary was perpetually virgin, the fact that they mention solely heõs instead of heõs hou is indicative of the opinion of many that, grammatically, there is no such special exception for the latter as opposed to the former as regards to the continuation of the action in the main clause.
This view is further supported by Raymond Brown in The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In this work, Brown essentially concurs with the evidence adduced from all scholarly sources thus far:
“Leaving aside post-Reformation quarrels, we must seek to reconstruct Matthew’s intention, first from the immediate context and then from the whole Gospel. How does “not know her until” fit into the immediate context? In English when something is negated until a particular time, occurrence after that time is usually assumed. However, in discussing the Greek heõs hou after a negative…K. Beyer, Semitishce Syntax im Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1962), I, 132(1), points out that in Greek and Semitic such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the “until” was reached…The immediate context favors a lack of future implication here, for Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the Isaian prophecy will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. As for the marital situation after the birth of the child, in itself this verse gives us no information whatsoever. In my judgment the question of Mary’s remaining a virgin for the rest of her life belongs to post-biblical theology, …] Besides the question of fact, one has to ask whether Matthew was in a position to know the facts. Did he think that the brothers were children of Mary born after Jesus; and if so, was this simply an assumption on his part?” (emphasis added)
In Mary In the New Testament, Brown et. al. further concede that it is only on the basis of other passages that one would be inclined to accept that Mary did not remain a virgin. They write: “It is only when this verse is combined with Matthew’s reference to Mary and the brothers of Jesus (12:46), along with the sisters (13:55-56), that a likelihood arises that (according to Matthew’s understanding) Joseph did come to know Mary after Jesus’ birth and that they begot children.” And, of course, these other references are by no means conclusive either. The adelphoi of Jesus are not necessarily uterine brothers and sisters, but might refer to close relatives who grew up with Jesus under the same roof.
Eric Svendsen acknowledges others who accept this position:
"Protestants scholars who take this view include Robert Gundry, Matthew,: A Commentary from His Handbook on a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 25, who says, “By itself heõs hou, which belongs to Matthew’s preferred diction (4,2) does not necessarily imply that Joseph and Mary entered into normal sexual relations after Jesus’ birth”; Richard B. Gardner, Matthew (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottsdale, P.A.: Herald Press, 1991), 41,…states that “the language of the text leaves open the question of how Joseph and Mary related to each other after Jesus’ birth…”
In addition to these eminent scholars, both John Meier and Daniel Harrington also corroborate the judgment that indeed the text neither affirms nor denies Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Adapted from:
Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx
- Status