Did Jesus have brothers? Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doug_S

Guest
I differ to the Protoevangelium of James. Which is not scripture and NOT without error. However, it is and early writings that expressed the original beliefs about the relationship between Mary and Joseph.

It says that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. When she got older it became unlawful for her to live in the temple They drew lots and it fell to Joseph. An older man who had grown kids.
It was more his duty as a pious Jew to take the temple virgin into his home. The relationship would have been more like a father daughter relationship.
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
 
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
REALLY! you come here and say they had children?

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

Read these for the catholic position/refutation of your assertions.
 
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. .
How do you know that brothers meant blood brothers instead of friends or relatives?

Are you sure the use of “brother” in that time meant blood brother or something else?
Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus
Actually…prior to this, Joseph considers leaving Mary because she was already pregnant.

And also…why is it that you automatically conclude that a verse or passage in the Bible indicates that they had sex?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These off topic posts split from another thread as per Forum Rules.
 
Doug, if “brother” or “brethren” only meant blood brother in scripture, then you have a big problem.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. According to your theory, Mary would have to be pregnant consecutively for 90 years. Your position is absurd.

The “Mary had other children” is a doctrine of demons, because it diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation. You either accept the doctrine of the Incarnation and all that it implies to Our Lord’s mother, or you reject even the reformers who upheld them, and follow faddish opinions.
 
We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, that does not mean we are related to Jesus. I think the word “bother” is misunderstood in more then one way. Who ever may read this I am his/her “brother”, but not as we usually understand it, but in Christ meaning we share the faith, love and prayers as Christians do.

Why are you all so keen on saying Jesus had brothers (and sisters?) ? Our Blessed Virgin was a Virgin and still is a Virgin. If not, who would call Her Virgin? Nobody.
 
The term brother, in the NT was often used to refer to every single person who was an Israelite. Israelite? Yes. Brother. Israelite? No. Not brother.

However I do believe that Jesus had brothers who were older than Mary. Mary was younger than the brothers of Jesus. His brothers were from Josephs first marriage, his wife had died. The brothers were close to both Mary and Jesus. I think the brothers would have looked on Mary as their younger sister.

I also believe that blessed mother Mary was ever virgin, and it would be insulting to Joseph who was most noble and humble to suggest otherwise. He was the person chosen by God to be Mary’s defender and provider, and I think he did it very well.

And besides not everything in this life is about sex, can we please just for a moment respect people outside that box, and recognize that there are higher ideologies.
 
The Greek word “adelphos” and its feminine form “adelphe” appear over 300 times in the New Testament.

In the King James Version they are usually translated “brother”, “brethren”, “sister”, or “sisters”.

Here you will find an exhaustive list and very good analysis of each and every occurrence.

The author of this study claims only one occurrence of “brother” MIGHT apply to a “brother” of Jesus, namely
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [1Cor 9:5]
So there it is. That’s the big proof.
 
I have a little doubt in this regard and would be glad if someone could tell me how I should explain to people who ask me the following:

Why did the inspired author add the words (in bold below), even when without them the meaning can be understood.

a) Mt 1:24,25 - - When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;

b) Lk 2:7 - - And she gave birth to her* firstborn** son and wrapped him in bands of cloth*

Thanx in anticipation.
 
I have a little doubt in this regard and would be glad if someone could tell me how I should explain to people who ask me the following:

Why did the inspired author add the words (in bold below), even when without them the meaning can be understood.

a) Mt 1:24,25 - - When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son
;

b) Lk 2:7 - - And she gave birth to her* firstborn*** son and wrapped him in bands of cloth

Thanx in anticipation.This is not really that tough to answer. CA’s apologists have done already done so. See the following links:
I also have an article on my blog that may help a bit. It’s called The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
Let’s not take such a simplistic look at the truth that God has transmitted to man. For example, how do you explain the following:

Genesis 11:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
27 Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot.

Abram and Lot are uncle and nephew.

Genesis 13:8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.

Abram and Lot are brothers.

?
 
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
Matthew13:55-56
Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers–James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

In the context you are reading Mt 12:46-50, then you must also believe that it is “safe to say” that He has four blood brothers and many sisters as well.

You are mistaken in your idea of how you are reading the scripture. 👍
 
Matthew13:55-56
Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers–James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

In the context you are reading Mt 12:46-50, then you must also believe that it is “safe to say” that He has four blood brothers and many sisters as well.

You are mistaken in your idea of how you are reading the scripture. 👍
I’ll take it a step further. If this text says that these are the biological brothers and sisters of Jesus then the text would also mean that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph.

Notice that Joseph is the only one mentioned as a parent to all these individuals, not Mary.
 
I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
Matthew 1:25 – “Until”

Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus.

The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument.

Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point (see below).

Consequently, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

+++

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Ephesians 4:12-13
“…for the equipping…for the work of ministry… for the edifying…TILL we all come to the unity of the faith…” Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary?

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?

1 Timothy 4:13
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” After I arrive you won’t need to do any of those things?

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…” When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments?

Revelation 2:25-26
“But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power…” Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns?
 
This perpetual argument (which did not occur before the 16th century rebellion) has never occurred in he Apostolic Churches, as they have the fulness of revelation and the Sacred Tradition which has taught consistently and clearly. Once you so grossly simplify revelation by reducing it to the partial and incomplete scripture alone, problems are guaranteed.
 
Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.
Matthew 1:25 – “Until”

Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus.
There is also Matthew 28:19-20

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you. And remember, I am with you each and every day until the end of the age.


Doug does this then imply that our Lord will not be with us after the end of the age??
Of Course Not. 😃
 
Here is an interpretation that better demonstrates that this verse was written to confirm the fulfillment of Isaiah’s (7:14) prophecy:

Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.

OK, so Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth, but nothing at all about a “first born”, so who did?

Zechariah (aka Zacharias).

Zacharias 12:10
Knox Bible (KNOX)
10 On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through.[a] Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.

So, we see that, for Jesus to be the fulfillment of prophecy, He had to be:
  1. Born of a virgin
  2. Pierced through
  3. First born
  4. An only son
Those who, for the simple and misguided purpose of opposing Catholic teaching, demand that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters are ignoring the prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill. This presents a vexing problem for non-Catholics, anti-Catholics (and even some Catholics) in that either Zechariah falsely prophesied (thus questioning his prophesies as well as the bible itself) or that Jesus of Nazareth was not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. This is a very uncomfortable choice, as either assertion assaults the foundation of the faith.
 
There is also Matthew 28:19-20

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you. And remember, I am with you each and every day until
the end of the age.

Doug does this then imply that our Lord will not be with us after the end of the age??
Of Course Not. 😃
Language misunderstanding, combined with incomplete revelation. Let’s listen to John:

John 13:1
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.

How utterly silly to then assume that Jesus no longer loves them! Agendas seek always to justify themselves, even at the risk of twisting and distorting the scriptures, as Peter so sagely warned in 2 Peter 3:15-17.
 
Here is an interpretation that better demonstrates that this verse was written to confirm the fulfillment of Isaiah’s (7:14) prophecy:

Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.

OK, so Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth, but nothing at all about a “first born”, so who did?

Zechariah (aka Zacharias).

Zacharias 12:10
Knox Bible (KNOX)
10 On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through.[a] Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.

So, we see that, for Jesus to be the fulfillment of prophecy, He had to be:
  1. Born of a virgin
  2. Pierced through
  3. First born
  4. An only son
Those who, for the simple and misguided purpose of opposing Catholic teaching, demand that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters are ignoring the prophecies that Jesus had to fulfill. This presents a vexing problem for non-Catholics, anti-Catholics (and even some Catholics) in that either Zechariah falsely prophesied (thus questioning his prophesies as well as the bible itself) or that Jesus of Nazareth was not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. This is a very uncomfortable choice, as either assertion assaults the foundation of the faith.
I took these passages from the Catholic bible.
Zechariah 12:10 10 But over the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem I shall pour out a spirit of grace and prayer, and they will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced as though for an only child, and weep for him as people weep for a first-born child.

There is no prophesy here for an only child. He is only try to relate to the people how tragic the crucifixion will be.

Mt 1:25 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,and he named him Jesus.

Make what you want of this.
Peace to you.
 
I took these passages from the Catholic bible.
Zechariah 12:10 10 But over the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem I shall pour out a spirit of grace and prayer, and they will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced as though for an only child, and weep for him as people weep for a first-born child. There is no prophesy here for an only child. (You alone say so!) He is only try to relate to the people how tragic the crucifixion will be. Mt 1:25 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,and he named him Jesus.

Make what you want of this.
Peace to you.
What bothers me is those who purposefully seek out this site, and on the authority of their ego, bolstered by personal anti-Catholic opinion, attempt the impossible task of defeating Catholic teaching - all the while trusting that the Catholic Church was right about the bible they hold in their hands.

Reminds me of how the assassin in “Day of the Jackal” rewarded the gunsmith who built the rifle for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top