Did Jesus have brothers? Revisited

[Remember_Me]

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.

I don’t think he meant any harm.

 

[Porknpie]

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. .

I’ve said this before that give the laws of nature, Mary would also have had 120 daughters as well, so Jesus would have had 240 brothers and sisters.

Absurd becomes more absurd.

 

[po18guy]

I’ve said this before that give the laws of nature, Mary would also have had 120 daughters as well, so Jesus would have had 240 brothers and sisters.

Absurd becomes more absurd.

Not a single mention of those “other children” of Mary when they went to Jerusalem and Jesus stayed behind in the temple (Luke 2:44-45). Not a word about those “other children” at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-2). Not a peep about them at the crucifixion (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). In fact, those “other children”, each of them, was so thoroughly rotten that Jesus never dared to name them or even mention them, and actually did not even trust them with His own mother! But, rather than reveal just how horrible Mary’s “other children” were, He simply shunned them and gave Mary to John, whose own mother was also right there! (John 19:26-27)

Must have been some absolutely horrible “brothers and sisters”! Except for one thing: “Children of Mary” or “other children” do not appear anywhere in the bible. So, just who is adding to scripture here…:ehh: Maybe someone who loves disregarding scripture, privately misinterpreting the rest, and automatically defaults against the Catholic Church, preferring to trust their ego first and foremost.

Makes you think that Zechariah might have been right when he prophesied about a “first-born” and an “only son”. Makes you think that Gabriel meant something in particular when he told Mary “You will bear A Son” (singular).

 

[gus]

Not a single mention of those “other children” of Mary when they went to Jerusalem and Jesus stayed behind in the temple (Luke 2:44-45). Not a word about those “other children” at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-2). Not a peep about them at the crucifixion (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). In fact, those “other children”, each of them, was so thoroughly rotten that Jesus never dared to name them or even mention them, and actually did not even trust them with His own mother! But, rather than reveal just how horrible Mary’s “other children” were, He simply shunned them and gave Mary to John, whose own mother was also right there! (John 19:26-27)

Must have been some absolutely horrible “brothers and sisters”! Except for one thing: “Children of Mary” or “other children” do not appear anywhere in the bible. So, just who is adding to scripture here…:ehh: Maybe someone who loves disregarding scripture, privately misinterpreting the rest, and automatically defaults against the Catholic Church, preferring to trust their ego first and foremost.

Makes you think that Zechariah might have been right when he prophesied about a “first-born” and an “only son”. Makes you think that Gabriel meant something in particular when he told Mary “You will bear A Son” (singular).

Jerome debunked the Jesus had brothers theory in the 4th century. It requires a third non- biblical James to have any credendence. Mary having children other than Jesus is unbiblical.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think he meant any harm.

I am sure he means well. However, would you go to another denominations’ website, both guns blazing, and insinuate that that their beliefs are stupid or anti-biblical?

The problem is that his heart does appear to be open at all to learning a faith much more ancient than his own. In my response, I considered the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Darryl_B]

Not a single mention of those “other children” of Mary when they went to Jerusalem and Jesus stayed behind in the temple (Luke 2:44-45). Not a word about those “other children” at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-2). Not a peep about them at the crucifixion (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). In fact, those “other children”, each of them, was so thoroughly rotten that Jesus never dared to name them or even mention them, and actually did not even trust them with His own mother! But, rather than reveal just how horrible Mary’s “other children” were, He simply shunned them and gave Mary to John, whose own mother was also right there! (John 19:26-27)

Must have been some absolutely horrible “brothers and sisters”! Except for one thing: “Children of Mary” or “other children” do not appear anywhere in the bible. So, just who is adding to scripture here…:ehh: Maybe someone who loves disregarding scripture, privately misinterpreting the rest, and automatically defaults against the Catholic Church, preferring to trust their ego first and foremost.

Makes you think that Zechariah might have been right when he prophesied about a “first-born” and an “only son”. Makes you think that Gabriel meant something in particular when he told Mary “You will bear A Son” (singular).

I agree totally with you on this. I would just also like to add that the singularity of first-born is important theologically to set it against the Cain-Abel Ishmael-Isaac Esau-Jacob struggle. The struggle was over here was Jesus, God manifest in the flesh.

 

[po18guy]

I agree totally with you on this. I would just also like to add that the singularity of first-born is important theologically to set it against the Cain-Abel Ishmael-Isaac Esau-Jacob struggle. The struggle was over here was Jesus, God manifest in the flesh.

Mary was so shocked to hear that she would bear a son, that she had the chutzpah to ask Gabriel how that would come to pass. Which of us has ever seen an angel, let alone fired questions back?!?

Mary knew that she was about to be married. She knew that children came through knowledge of man. So, to all those “other children” types, I ask: knowing all of this, why was Mary shocked to hear that she would bear a son?

Does it mean anything at all that Mary vowed before Gabriel that she was the “handmaid” or “bond slave” of her own Son? How many masters may we serve? Her own Son, our Lord, teaches that one cannot serve both God and man. We see from scripture that Mary was with Jesus from virgin womb to virgin tomb. Did the mother of God lie to Gabriel, then go on and have a normal family?

Get real!

 

[adrift]

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 think you missed the point that it says an only child is first-born. You had made a point that first born must mean a second born. That of course is non-sense. My cousin was first born of my aunt who had only one child. The new royal is referred to as the first born because it means he will one day be king.

Please look up the word until in a dictionary. You will see that it means a period of time and nothing else. When you try to define it differently you come up with weird stuff like Michal had no children until her dying day.

 

[adrift]

I am sure he means well. However, would you go to another denominations’ website, both guns blazing, and insinuate that that their beliefs are stupid or anti-biblical?

The problem is that his heart does appear to be open at all to learning a faith much more ancient than his own. In my response, I considered the totality of the circumstances.

I wonder if he thought that we have never heard these argument before

I will add one more. Jesus gave His mother to John to take care of her. This would only be necessary if He had no siblings.

 

[Darryl_B]

Mary was so shocked to hear that she would bear a son, that she had the chutzpah to ask Gabriel how that would come to pass. Which of us has ever seen an angel, let alone fired questions back?!?

Mary knew that she was about to be married. She knew that children came through knowledge of man. So, to all those “other children” types, I ask: knowing all of this, why was Mary shocked to hear that she would bear a son?

Does it mean anything at all that Mary vowed before Gabriel that she was the “handmaid” or “bond slave” of her own Son? How many masters may we serve? Her own Son, our Lord, teaches that one cannot serve both God and man. We see from scripture that Mary was with Jesus from virgin womb to virgin tomb. Did the mother of God lie to Gabriel, then go on and have a normal family?

Get real!

You seem to be suggesting that Mary had taken a vow of chastity.

 

[po18guy]

I wonder if he thought that we have never heard these argument before

I will add one more. Jesus gave His mother to John to take care of her. This would only be necessary if He had no siblings.

Never mind the 2,000 year old consistent Apostolic Tradition of the Church. There is a veritable mountain of scriptural evidence against any other child existing. And, those who front these nonsensical theories often chide us for adding to scripture

Sad to say, the root problem is simple anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[po18guy]

You seem to be suggesting that Mary had taken a vow of chastity.

Let’s ask her one day! But, really, why would she be shocked to know that both the planned marriage AND a child would occur? This is a point that many never ponder.

 

[Darryl_B]

Never mind the 2,000 year old consistent Apostolic Tradition of the Church. There is a veritable mountain of scriptural evidence against any other child existing. And, those who front these nonsensical theories often chide us for adding to scripture

Sad to say, the root problem is simple anti-Catholic bigotry.

Mary is the chink in the armor. If we can make Mary nothing special, then we can make the Catholic Church nothing special. I know it is silly logic, and I have repented of that logic, but I grew up in a church that would much rather name their son Adolf than their daughter Mary.

 

[po18guy]

Mary is the chink in the armor. If we can make Mary nothing special, then we can make the Catholic Church nothing special. I know it is silly logic, and I have repented of that logic, but I grew up in a church that would much rather name their son Adolf than their daughter Mary.

You have overcome much! But, if we take John 1:1-4 as meaning what it says, Mary was first conceived of in the Divine Intellect before Jesus brought her to flesh for the specific purpose of conceiving of Him in her womb and bringing Him to flesh for the redemption of all mankind. You cannot attack one flesh without attacking the other, as God’s plan deemed both to be crucial and irreplaceable. I had huge problems with Marian doctrine, but a Catholic bible study one evening simply erased them. It was a private revelation where several verses simply came together. Since then it all makes perfect sense. Her purpose was to bring Him to the world, and ever after, to bring the world to Him. It’s all about Him, but you cannot take Mary out of the equation, else you risk offending the Lord Himself, Who created her for Himself.

As to chaste marriages, have a look at this one: americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/Saint.aspx?id=1149

 

[Lasting_faith]

I think it is time for some logical thinking. Would Christ have asked His Apostles and followers to take care of Virgin Mary if there would have been more people in the family? Second, as I understand and see it Joseph was not alive when Christ ask them to support Her, but that is really not relevant either. You do belive that a miracle did happen with the “priest that vanished” (in a ongoing thread in another forum) but have no faith what so ever in the fact that Jesus did not have brother, or sisters, as we understand the words. Both are miracles, even if the story about the priest will somehow be debunked as a priest that just did happen to pass by in the right moment. Why is it so hard to have a bit faith in the fact that if Virgin Mary would have had other children She would not be a virgin anymore. You are all so keen to proclaim that a miracle have happen on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere but are totally sure that there must be a “hidden and dark” secret about Jesus brothers and sisters. Both are miracles, both a beutiful gift from God, but you can not believe in it.

 

[po18guy]

What baffles me is that those who are obsessed with believing that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations seem always to accuse the Catholic Church of being obsessed with sex!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It will prob make no difference but here goes.

This topic has been done to death on this forum at least 5 times since Ihave been a member.

Just look up the topic…

Some threads are actually extremely scholarly and some present some very ingenious arguments.

But they all end up at pretty much the same unresolved conclusion.
Namely, both the Bible and modern scolarship ultimately cannot ccome up with a definitive conclusion as the words, context is always sufficently uncertain.

Hence Prrotestants, following Scripture alone conclude such a fantastic thing cannot be given credence without better certainty.

Catholics of course rely on verbal tradition and Magisterial teaching as well. Therefore we do not see the Bible as contradicting Tradition because it is entirely possible that the so called brothers could mean half brothers or even adopted non blood family members.

Of course, having said that there is prob no theological reason why God could not have been born of a sexually active woman. However it is obviously easier, for the open minded, to be confronted/accept Jesus’s unique divine favour if his mothers virginity was true.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Faith is to believe in something we can not [always] prove. We do belive in Christ, in His suffering for our sins and His ressurection. We also believe that He will one day return and take us home/build us a new home (on earth?) and we have no problem with thinking that is true and will happen. I can still not figure out why it is impossible for some to believe that Virgin Mary was, and is, a Virgin even after giving birth to Christ.

And that is not all. Why is it so important for some that Jesus had brothers and sisters? Christ is divine, He took the shape of a human because He was on a “mission”. God could have made Him out of a rock if that would have been His will. So why did God choose Christ to be born as He did? Because God did know that we needed someone special to pray for us, and to help us in the time of need. And that is why He did choose His son to be born as a human, from a Virgin, blessed from the first day earth did exist. There is not one single word in The Bible that say that Our Blessed Virgin was taken to Heaven, yet we have no problem in believ that.

For those who have a strong need or urge to find out if Christ had brothers or sisters, what would that change? Nothing. All those need is to be right. Well, one day you will know, but blessed are those who belive it today, without knowledge or evidence. If we can believe in miracles we most certainly can, and should, believe in that a Virgin can be pregnant and give birth, and remain a Virgin. Those who believe it today are blessed. Those who believe in the Ressurection of Christ should have no difficulties to comprehend that He was born as a human. After all, it is more likely to be born then raise from the dead. Blessed are those who have faith in that. We do not need to be right in anything. Anything is everything and everything are made by God. All He want us to have is a crumb of faith, blessed are those who have that crumb. Finally, to be right will not save us from Hell, doing right will, and that is all God want from us.

 

[chero23]

I can’t understand why ppl are so focused if Mary had more kids or not. Lets Jesus also had a dad, no I’m talking about the Father, his name Joseph. If we read the OT, majority of the time if not 100% of the time, the man was who had kids from previous marriages or engagements.

Now they mention 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters as Jesus brothers. Yet in Matthew, they say that their the other Mary’s son, the wife of cleopas. Now if ppl have that thorn bc their considering Catholicism, then all I can say is have faith, the church has taught that for 2,000 yrs. Now, if all ppl want to do is stir things up, remember is Jesus mother, the second part of the trinity, if you disrespect her you disrespect Jesus mom. Which I don’t think he will like very much.

 

[Steveabrous]

You seem to be suggesting that Mary had taken a vow of chastity.

Yes he is.

If you read the Protoevangelium of James which is

1. not scripture
2. not without error

However

1. a very early writing (150 a.d.) and was used by the early church initialy but fell away because it focus’s more on Mary then Jesus
2. expresses the belief of the early church concerning Mary’s virginity

We find that Mary was a consecrated virgin to the temple. . 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.

When she got Pregnant Joseph was shocked. Not because his wife cheated on him but because the temple would think he did it. As of course they did. The understanding was that she would remain a virgin.

Her disbelief that she would bare a child only makes sense if she was planning on remaining a virgin even after being betrothed.