Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

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

Also, there is an interesting article on Catholic Answers entitled, Mary: Ever Virgin.
Link: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

It discusses The Protoevangelium of James.
Partial quote:
"According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1)."

It also includes quotes from Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo I.

Peace,
Anna

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I would simply like to submit that right here it is using the term “half-brother.” And that is one of the possibilities. Mary could have married Joseph, who already had children. They would be Jesus’ half-brothers - not full brothers. It is my understanding that this was a common practice. Mary may have been consecrated and her betrothal to Joseph may have been one where she was expected to retain her virginity and to help raise her new husband’s children from a previous marriage.

I am, of course, not saying that this has to be the case as the Bible is pretty much silent on the issue. But it is a possibility and one that must be taken seriously.

Half-brothers of Jesus and an ever-virgin Mary. Perfectly possible.

What you have presented is certainly not proof that Jesus had siblings who were the children of Mary.

Also, as far as I know, scholars and Bible experts are not in union on that opinion (that is a rather strange word to use - “opinion”). Surely Catholic Bible experts are not in agreement!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

John,

First let me say welcome to the forums! Glad you joined the discussion. It seems this thread has been resurrected.

Interesting commentary by Meire; but even writings of Protestant Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley disagree with Meire’s conclusions.

Also, I think you will have to provide proof that “scholars and Bible experts are in union” on the issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Peace,
Anna

Well…actually I think I can take the credit for the resurrection of this thread. This afternoon I thought the thread had died and I never thought anyone would even read my post. But I posted anyway, so maybe I get partial credit?

Just kiddin’. It’s true that I thought the thread had died and that nobody would read my little post. But I’m glad that someone else came in and posted after me because this is a good thread and there is still a lot we can discuss.

Actually I usually kill threads so I was very surprised to see that this one was active again. I’m very glad.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would simply like to submit that right here it is using the term “half-brother.” And that is one of the possibilities. Mary could have married Joseph, who already had children. They would be Jesus’ half-brothers - not full brothers. It is my understanding that this was a common practice. Mary may have been consecrated and her betrothal to Joseph may have been one where she was expected to retain her virginity and to help raise her new husband’s children from a previous marriage.

I am, of course, not saying that this has to be the case as the Bible is pretty much silent on the issue. But it is a possibility and one that must be taken seriously.

Half-brothers of Jesus and an ever-virgin Mary. Perfectly possible.

What you have presented is certainly not proof that Jesus had siblings who were the children of Mary.

Also, as far as I know, scholars and Bible experts are not in union on that opinion (that is a rather strange word to use - “opinion”). Surely Catholic Bible experts are not in agreement!!

This is actually the older tradition of the Church, much older than the “cousins” theory. Eastern Christians (Orthodox and Eastern Catholics) hold to this tradition to this day.

 

[highrigger1]

jharek,
All I have read agree on that. Too many to list. John Meier, Catholic, writing under the Imprimatur in his book Marginal Jew is one of them. Many more. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

You should probably read your own article more carefully. As it says, “This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century.” In other words, the interpretation that they are literal brothers of Jesus was popular before the late 4th century. It makes no statement regarding the thought or belief of Church writers after that point.

farsight,

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

 

[highrigger1]

You’re showing your bias again, Rigger. Are you familiar with the ecumenical work Mary in the New Testament? Referring to James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, the Protestant & Catholic authors note:

So much for your claim that “scholars and bible experts are in union on that opinion.”

steward,

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

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

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

John,

First let me say welcome to the forums! Glad you joined the discussion. It seems this thread has been resurrected.

Interesting commentary by Meire; but even writings of Protestant Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley disagree with Meire’s conclusions.

Also, I think you will have to provide proof that “scholars and Bible experts are in union” on the issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Peace,
Anna

anna,

All that I have read are in unison. I have yet to read a known reputable professional historian with a different view. Meires explanation seems very reasonable to me.
Perhaps there is someone who disagrees but I would like to see why.
Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Also, there is an interesting article on Catholic Answers entitled, Mary: Ever Virgin.
Link: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

It discusses The Protoevangelium of James.
Partial quote:
"According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1)."

It also includes quotes from Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo I.

Peace,
Anna

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

 

[highrigger1]

I would simply like to submit that right here it is using the term “half-brother.” And that is one of the possibilities. Mary could have married Joseph, who already had children. They would be Jesus’ half-brothers - not full brothers. It is my understanding that this was a common practice. Mary may have been consecrated and her betrothal to Joseph may have been one where she was expected to retain her virginity and to help raise her new husband’s children from a previous marriage.

I am, of course, not saying that this has to be the case as the Bible is pretty much silent on the issue. But it is a possibility and one that must be taken seriously.

Half-brothers of Jesus and an ever-virgin Mary. Perfectly possible.

What you have presented is certainly not proof that Jesus had siblings who were the children of Mary.

Also, as far as I know, scholars and Bible experts are not in union on that opinion (that is a rather strange word to use - “opinion”). Surely Catholic Bible experts are not in agreement!!

little soldier,

I agree it is not proof. It is however the most reasonable way of initerpreting the original intent of the author of those verses that say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

It does leave the possibility that the intent of the author was half brothers although Meire obviously doubts that view. But in that case James and the others would all be older than Jesus.
That makes little sense that Mary was walking around all the time with men and women not of her family all older than Jesus. The scene makes one think of Mary walking around with children and perhaps a babe in her arms.

Anyway my understanding is the intent of the author is not interpreted by the Catholic church. They do not consider that in determining dogma as I understand.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Farsight001]

farsight,

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

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 ****.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

What about John 19:26. When Jesus saw his Mother there and the disciple whome he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear Woman, here is your son” and to the disciple, “Here is your Mother.” From that time on the diciple took her into his home.

Joseph was obviously dead at this point (though I would not be suprised if people argue this that too). Is it not reasonable to assume that Mary must not have had other children, otherwise It would not have been necissary for Jesus to hand his Mother over to John to be taken care of. The Next oldest sibling would have been responsible for her.

Its funny how even the leaders of the Protestant reformation believed that mary had no other Children than Jesus, but now a lot of people seem to think it is some kind of Catholic conspiricy. Or only read things about one view on the subject, not both.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Interesting commentary by Meire; but even writings of Protestant Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley disagree with Meire’s conclusions.

Also, I think you will have to provide proof that “scholars and Bible experts are in union” on the issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters.

jharek,
All I have read agree on that. Too many to list. John Meier, Catholic, writing under the Imprimatur in his book Marginal Jew is one of them. Many more. Peace, JohnR

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

. . . .All that I have read are in unison. I have yet to read a known reputable professional historian with a different view. Meires explanation seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps there is someone who disagrees but I would like to see why.

highrigger1,

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have only considered authors who agree with you.

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have not read any of the Protestant Reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley…

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have disregarded all sources provided on this thread that say otherwise.

You’re showing your bias again, Rigger. Are you familiar with the ecumenical work Mary in the New Testament? Referring to James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, the Protestant & Catholic authors note:

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

You’re showing your bias again, Rigger. Are you familiar with the ecumenical work Mary in the New Testament? Referring to James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, the Protestant & Catholic authors note:

So much for your claim that “scholars and bible experts are in union on that opinion.”

Also, there is an interesting article on Catholic Answers entitled, Mary: Ever Virgin.
Link: catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

It discusses The Protoevangelium of James.
Partial quote:
"According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1)."

It also includes quotes from Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo I.

Peace,
Anna

John,

Respectful discussion involves considering what others have posted.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well…actually I think I can take the credit for the resurrection of this thread. This afternoon I thought the thread had died and I never thought anyone would even read my post. But I posted anyway, so maybe I get partial credit?

Just kiddin’. It’s true that I thought the thread had died and that nobody would read my little post. But I’m glad that someone else came in and posted after me because this is a good thread and there is still a lot we can discuss.

Actually I usually kill threads so I was very surprised to see that this one was active again. I’m very glad.

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

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .Also, I think you will have to provide proof that “scholars and Bible experts are in union” on the issue of whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters. . . .

jharek,
All I have read agree on that. Too many to list. John Meier, Catholic, writing under the Imprimatur in his book Marginal Jew is one of them. Many more. Peace, JohnR

highrigger1,

Too many to list? Then it should be easy for you to provide proof that “scholars and Bible experts are in union” on the issue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

jharek,
All I have read agree on that. Too many to list. John Meier, Catholic, writing under the Imprimatur in his book Marginal Jew is one of them. Many more. Peace, JohnR

. . . .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. . . .

John,

As the OP of this thread, I ask you to be respectful and refrain from derogatory comments about Catholics.

I’ve been discussing issues here for 3 years. I may not agree with all Catholic doctrines; but you are wrong to assume that Catholics are more interested in dogma than the original intent of the authors of Holy Scripture.

Please discuss the issues respectfully.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JonathonofOhio]

highrigger1,

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have only considered authors who agree with you.

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have not read any of the Protestant Reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley…

If all you have read agree with Meire, then you have disregarded all sources provided on this thread that say otherwise.

John,

Respectful discussion involves considering what others have posted.

Peace,
Anna

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.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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; . . . .

JonathonofOhio,

I think we owe it to one another to reflect, as you said, on what others have posted. Even if we don’t change our position, we will better understand the what and why of the beliefs of others.

Peace,
Anna

 

[LittleSoldier]

little soldier,

I agree it is not proof. It is however the most reasonable way of initerpreting the original intent of the author of those verses that say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

It does leave the possibility that the intent of the author was half brothers although Meire obviously doubts that view. But in that case James and the others would all be older than Jesus.
That makes little sense that Mary was walking around all the time with men and women not of her family all older than Jesus. The scene makes one think of Mary walking around with children and perhaps a babe in her arms.

Anyway my understanding is the intent of the author is not interpreted by the Catholic church. They do not consider that in determining dogma as I understand.

Peace, JohnR

Thank you for responding to all the posts! Most people don’t do that. Looking at it from my POV it’s not the most reasonable way of interpreting the original intent of the authors and it’s my impression that Catholic Bible experts would not agree with you, either. That’s an opinion you have and that I don’t but I have not studied this in any detail. And so my knowledge is limited. Please bear with me.

What I find troubling is that Jesus, while on the Cross, told John that Mary was His mother. He would then take care of her. If there were half-brothers, where were they? Wouldn’t they take precedence over John? But the same holds true if Mary had other children. They would have been younger than Jesus. Were they all dead when Jesus was on the Cross? Jesus was in his early thirties and died because He was murdered. He didn’t die of natural causes. I suppose Mary could have given birth to only girls, who would not be expected to take care of Mary. But that’s adding another variable for which there is no proof or implication from Bible scripture.

As far as I know, the Church teaches that Mary remained ever-virgin. The Church is the authority and I defer to her as I am Catholic.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thank you for responding to all the posts! Most people don’t do that. Looking at it from my POV it’s not the most reasonable way of interpreting the original intent of the authors and it’s my impression that Catholic Bible experts would not agree with you, either. That’s an opinion you have and that I don’t but I have not studied this in any detail. And so my knowledge is limited. Please bear with me.

What I find troubling is that Jesus, while on the Cross, told John that Mary was His mother. He would then take care of her. If there were half-brothers, where were they? Wouldn’t they take precedence over John? But the same holds true if Mary had other children. They would have been younger than Jesus. Were they all dead when Jesus was on the Cross? Jesus was in his early thirties and died because He was murdered. He didn’t die of natural causes. I suppose Mary could have given birth to only girls, who would not be expected to take care of Mary. But that’s adding another variable for which there is no proof or implication from Bible scripture.

As far as I know, the Church teaches that Mary remained ever-virgin. The Church is the authority and I defer to her as I am Catholic.

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