Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

[LittleSoldier]

Agreed. If you are not going to take the time to read and reflect on what others have previously posted in the thread, please do not post something. Unless it is addressing or disputing something that has already been presented, or something entirely new concerning the subject of the thread, you are not providing new arguments or any useful information; basically your post becomes argumentum ad nauseam- a waste of everyone’s time that is trying to learn something from others on here. I only had to say this because I have spent the past couple of years reading a lot of posts on here and see a number of people showing up and posting to discussions that clearly have not read the entire thread before posting.

Wow. This is one of the most uncharitable posts I have read. Not everyone has the time to read an entire thread before responding to a post or the capacity to remember everything that has already been stated - even if you claim you do. Some threads are well over 1,000 posts long. I was the OP in a thread that hit 1,000 posts and then I introduced Part II which hit 1,000 posts again. I could have introduced Part III but I was tired and so I didn’t.

Please do not take it upon yourself to determine when it is appropriate for other people to post. It is not your call. If a person is confused it is not a waste of anyone’s time to try to help that person. If a person wants to make a point he has that right - even if someone else has already introduced it and even if the point has been debunked, or appears to have been debunked or has found some support. That person is probably trying to learn something from others here, too, or perhaps is trying to teach others. Both are valid reasons for posting. This is a discussion - not a formal debate.

It may not be an argumentum ad nauseum and not a fallacy but a question or statement introduced because someone believes it is appropriate. It’s not up to others to decide if it is appropriate. If it has been discussed before, post numbers can be offered. We are supposed to be charitable. Denying posting privileges to those who have not read the entire thread is uncharitable, may cause others to become afraid to post, and actually can cause harm to the discussion.

It is not a violation of forum rules to post without reading the entire thread.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier,

Valid point. If Jesus had brothers, they would have taken care of Mary.

I’m Anglican and I agree with the Catholic Church that Mary remains the Ever-Virgin.

Also, it is inconceivable to me as a woman, that after conceiving through the power of the Holy Spirit and carrying the Son of God in her womb, Mary would then defile her body with physical relations with a man, even in a legal marriage.

Anna

Your last point is one I had not considered. I agree that there is a strong possibility that Mary would not have relations with a man after undergoing the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the conception of Jesus. Although what actually occurred is a mystery, it must have been so holy and sacred that relations with a mortal human being would be a defilement. As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.

Thanks. I am learning.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Your last point is one I had not considered. I agree that there is a strong possibility that Mary would not have relations with a man after undergoing the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the conception of Jesus. Although what actually occurred is a mystery, it must have been so holy and sacred that relations with a mortal human being would be a defilement. As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.

Thanks. I am learning.

We’re learning together, LittleSoldier. Remember I was a Southern Baptist when I joined the forums in 2009.

I especially appreciate your point: “As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.”

Peace,
Anna

 

[Erich]

I especially appreciate your point: “As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.”

Precisely! From Mary, the Ark:

…
In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.
…
Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter: “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35)Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark: “And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” (Ez 44:1-3)

 

[PRmerger]

I never said ALL authors agree with Meire, but I think most, certainly **all historians I have read. **

Peace, JohnR

All historians you have read?



How many is that? Could you please cite all their names and online resources so we can verify that all of them claim that Mary had other children?

 

[Miriam1947]

Your last point is one I had not considered. I agree that there is a strong possibility that Mary would not have relations with a man after undergoing the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the conception of Jesus. Although what actually occurred is a mystery, it must have been so holy and sacred that relations with a mortal human being would be a defilement. As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.

Thanks. I am learning.

Okay there are other posts after this one. Please all of you forgive me.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

Joseph knows that Mary is carrying the Messiah. Can any of us (okay this is probably a guy question) even conceive (perhaps not the best choice of words) of Joseph having sexual intercourse with the woman who carried and gave birth to the Son of God?

Really?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Your last point is one I had not considered. I agree that there is a strong possibility that Mary would not have relations with a man after undergoing the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the conception of Jesus. Although what actually occurred is a mystery, it must have been so holy and sacred that relations with a mortal human being would be a defilement. As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there.

Thanks. I am learning.

Precisely! From Mary, the Ark:
…
In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.
…
Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter:

"Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle." (Ex 40:34-35)

Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark:

"And when they came to Na'chon's threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz'zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God." (2 Sam 6:6-7)

Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44:

"This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord." (Ez 44:1-3)

Erich,

Thank you so much for posting this quote from Mary, the Ark. It has certainly added to my understanding of the issue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[LittleSoldier]

Okay there are other posts after this one. Please all of you forgive me.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

Joseph knows that Mary is carrying the Messiah. Can any of us (okay this is probably a guy question) even conceive (perhaps not the best choice of words) of Joseph having sexual intercourse with the woman who carried and gave birth to the Son of God?

Really?

Yes! (I mean NO!!) Such a good point! Would Joseph do such a thing to the Mother of God? To the Ark of the Covenant?

 

[Anna_Scott]

LittleSoldier,

Valid point. If Jesus had brothers, they would have taken care of Mary.

I’m Anglican and I agree with the Catholic Church that Mary remains the Ever-Virgin.

Also, it is inconceivable to me as a woman, that after conceiving through the power of the Holy Spirit and carrying the Son of God in her womb, Mary would then defile her body with physical relations with a man, even in a legal marriage.

Anna

Your last point is one I had not considered. I agree that there is a strong possibility that Mary would not have relations with a man after undergoing the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the conception of Jesus. Although what actually occurred is a mystery, it must have been so holy and sacred that relations with a mortal human being would be a defilement. As Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, it would be akin to introducing something into that Ark which would not belong there. . . .

Okay there are other posts after this one. Please all of you forgive me.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

Joseph knows that Mary is carrying the Messiah. Can any of us (okay this is probably a guy question) even conceive (perhaps not the best choice of words) of Joseph having sexual intercourse with the woman who carried and gave birth to the Son of God?

Really?

The ladies have spoken.

Peace,
Anna

 

[LittleSoldier]

Erich,

Thank you so much for posting this quote from Mary, the Ark. It has certainly added to my understanding of the issue.

Peace,
Anna

Anna, and Erich, this is so weird because I just got off the phone after talking to my friend and she told me *exactly *the same thing about the over-shadowing and the word used and everything - except she just read it in another book (and she will email the citation to me so that I’ll have it tomorrow morning).

What a coincidence to read in a post what I had been told a few minutes before!

This also clears up some of my confusion about what happened to Uzzah. I thought that perhaps he had been taken straight to Heaven because of his “pious” act but it seems that I was wrong as God is described as being angry. This troubles me a little bit because on the surface it seems that Uzzah was showing respect to God by not letting the Ark fall. There’s got to be more and it probably wasn’t recorded. I can’t look into Uzzah’s heart or soul.

 

[stewstew03]

steward,

Have not read it. How does it refute John Meier?

Rigger1, not sure why you keep addressing me as “steward” but okay, I’ll roll with it…

In response to your post, I will re-post the earlier quote:

“It cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.” -page 72

I never said ALL authors agree with Meire, but I think most, certainly all historians I have read.

I thought you read Brown…? This quote, again, is from the well-known historical-critical book “Mary in the New Testament” by Brown (your favorite Catholic), Donfried, Fitzmyer, and Reumann. So, this refutes your claim that most historians agree with your position.

 

[stewstew03]

No, that was not your point. Your point was, very clearly, that current scholarship is prevalent in the idea that they are literal siblings. You offered those paragraphs as proof of CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP. I pointed out that they actually do no such thing.

So you are back to square one with no current scholars listed to promote the idea that current scholarship is prevalent that they were literal siblings. And you know why you have none? Because they don’t exist. Because it’s not prevalent. So cut the ****.

[Like button]

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Cousins, all! That’s the tradition.

Our Lady remains The Blessed Virgin, always and forever.
Blessings to you!:harp::heaven:
Kathryn Ann:angel1:

 

[LittleSoldier]

Precisely! From Mary, the Ark:

Erich, I hope it’s OK that I copied and pasted the quote you provided into another thread. I gave you credit for the post and provided a link for the post here and the article. Thanks. I’m not quite sure how to do this sort of thing correctly but what you provided fit in with the other thread perfectly. That thread is: The Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9223046#post9223046

 

[Anna_Scott]

Rigger1, not sure why you keep addressing me as “steward” but okay, I’ll roll with it…

In response to your post, I will re-post the earlier quote:

“It cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.” -page 72

I thought you read Brown…? This quote, again, is from the well-known historical-critical book “Mary in the New Testament” by Brown (your favorite Catholic), Donfried, Fitzmyer, and Reumann. So, this refutes your claim that most historians agree with your position.

Hey Steward

As for getting direct answers from Rigger1; all I can say is good luck with that. Hope you are more successful than I.

Anna

 

[Farsight001]

farsight,

I agree. The point is that the interpretation of literal siblings was very early. The opposite came later. Peace, JohnR

First, that’s not true at all. But this is besides the point. This statement here that literal siblings was an early interpretation and the opposite came later is in clear and direct opposition (to the point of being perfect polar opposites) of your earlier claim that CURRENT scholarship is that they are literal siblings. So which is it? We can’t have any sort of meaningful conversation if you’re flip flopping around like this. Do you believe that current scholarship is that they are literal siblings, or do you believe that current scholarship is that they are not literal siblings? You have claimed both positions at least twice each.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, and Erich, this is so weird because I just got off the phone after talking to my friend and she told me *exactly *the same thing about the over-shadowing and the word used and everything - except she just read it in another book (and she will email the citation to me so that I’ll have it tomorrow morning).

What a coincidence to read in a post what I had been told a few minutes before!

This also clears up some of my confusion about what happened to Uzzah. I thought that perhaps he had been taken straight to Heaven because of his “pious” act but it seems that I was wrong as God is described as being angry. This troubles me a little bit because on the surface it seems that Uzzah was showing respect to God by not letting the Ark fall. There’s got to be more and it probably wasn’t recorded. I can’t look into Uzzah’s heart or soul.

Wow, LittleSoldier,

Don’t you just love it when things like that happen?

Peace,
Anna

 

[adrift]

Anna,

Yes Jesus had brothers and sisters. Scholars and bible experts are in union on that opinion. Here is John Meire to explain.

John P. Meire
A Marginal Jew -Vol 1
Rethinking the Historical Jesus
Imprimitur
p 328

“What is the constant usage of the NT in this matter? The answer is clear; in the NT, adelphos,
when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical
or legal relationship, means only full or half brother, and nothing else. Outside our disputed case
it never means stepbrother (the solution of Epiphanius), cousin (the solution of Jerome), or nephew.
When one considers that adeophos (in either the literal or the metaphorical sense) is used a total
of 343 times in the NT,the consistency of this “literal” usage is amazing. To ignore the strikingly
constant usage of the NT in this regard, as well as the natural redactional sense of the Gospel
passage we have already examined, and to appeal instead to the usage of koine Greek in various
Jewish and Pagan texts cannot help but look like special pleading.”

It is hard to judge what the intent of the author was but from this snippet he is off base.

the Hebrew term for brother(s) appears about 629 not 343 times throughout the Old Testament in a variety of ways.
Whether two males have the same mother and father, only the same father, or just the same mother, the term “brother” is used to describe their relationship (cf. Genesis 37:14; 42:3-4; Judges 8:19).
In Genesis chapter 29, Laban is called Jacob’s “brother”: “And Laban said unto Jacob, ‘Because though art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought?’ ” (vs. 15, emp. added, KJV). Just before Laban’s statement, “Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s [Laban’s] brother” (v.s 12, KJV). Considering that Jacob was only Laban’s nephew (24:29-31), when these men used the term “brother” in discussions with (or about) each other, they merely were speaking of one another as blood relatives, and not actual male siblings.
In another nuance, members of the same tribe are called “brethren” ('acha) in 2 Samuel 19:12.
In Exodus 2:11, Moses’ fellow Israelites are called “brethren” (cf. Acts 3:22; Hebrews 7:5). As is noted in A.R. Fassuet’s Bible Dictionary, the Israelites often “distinguished a ‘brother’ as an Israelite by birth, and a ‘neighbor’ a proselyte, and allowed neither title to the Gentiles” (1998).
In the midst of his suffering, Job spoke of his friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) as “brothers” (NKJV, Hebrew 'acha).
In the New Testament, the term “brother(s)” (Greek adelphos) is used numerous times in reference to the relationship Christians have with one another as children of God (1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:6; 7:12; Philippians 2:25; et al.).

“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). 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.”

There is more but this is enough for the time being.
Meire covers all the aspects and arguments in history on this subject.

Peace, JohnR

How does he explain that no siblings are mentioned when Joseph and Mary “lost” Jesus in Jeruselem?
How does he explain that the mention of the brothers demonstrate that they are older than Jesus?
How does he explain that the mention of Mary identifies her as the mother of Jesus alone? She is never identified as mother to anyone else
How does he explain Jesus providing for Mary from the cross?

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier,

I know. It was you who resurrected this thread. :yeah_me:

I can relate to killing threads. It happens to me too. I hate it when my post is the last post of a thread.

Also, just wanna say I love your avatar. It make me smile every time I read your posts.

Peace,
Anna

Thanks. I love that photo. I don’t know if that smile was drawn in or what but it sure looks like that dog is grinning from ear to ear. I change my avatar frequently but this one is probably my favorite (except during Lent when I use a photo of a statue of a crying angel).

 

[LittleSoldier]

anna,

I am sure there are many that accept that view. It was very popular. But that does not make it so. Meier makes a very convincing argument that the NT describes actual siblings of Jesus. I am simply going by the most reasonable way to interpret scripture according to the intention of the author. I think the Catholic church does not interpret that way. They are more intrested in Dogma and not the original intent of the aurhor of the scripture as I understand it.

Peace, JohnR

I don’t think you understand the Catholic Church. She is very interested in the original intent of the author of Scripture. Scripture is penned by human beings who are guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture is the Word of God. As for dogma, the Church bases dogma on the Word of God - the entirety of the Word of God.

Perhaps some research into the Church would be beneficial. It’s just a suggestion.