Did Jesus have Brothers?

[Scott_Waddell]

And I will point out that every major Reformer accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity and even argued against the very objections raised against Catholis today. (Check my signature). Disbelief in Mary’s PV is a modern novelty.

Scott

 

[BrianH]

Scott Waddell:

And I will point out that every major Reformer accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity and even argued against the very objections raised against Catholis today. (Check my signature). Disbelief in Mary’s PV is a modern novelty.

Scott

Do you have anyone who claimed this within…100 years of 5 or 6 BC ? Just curious. Are your sources more than…100 years after the fact? Thanks
BH

 

[Zooey]

Scott Waddell:

And I will point out that every major Reformer accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity and even argued against the very objections raised against Catholis today. (Check my signature). Disbelief in Mary’s PV is a modern novelty.

Scott

So it is!! I never heard it growing up. It was never even suggested as a possibility! And this was in the Methodist tradition…

Then, as an adult, I suddenly start hearing the objections. My head is still trying to wrap itself around the “logic”.

I did a little research. The earliest place I could find reference to Mary having other children was from (wait for it!!) the “psychic” Edgar Cayce…He said he saw it in a :whacky: vision. Yeah. OK, you wanna run :whacky: that by me one more time? I’m not sure I http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/4.gifheard it the 1st time.

 

[Ortho]

thistle:

If Jesus had brothers and sisters (that would imply at least four blood siblings or four step siblings) how would one disciple be backup, insurance, etc. I’m sure 4 adults who would likely have families would have been more than sufficient to look after their mother!!
The bottom line anyway is that Jesus had no siblings and that is why he asked his beloved disciple (probably John) to look after his mother.

I’m not sure how one would know the situation back then. If someone had siblings, how would one know how many were alive at a given moment? How would one know their state of health? How would one know where they were? How would one know the situation was sufficient?

If the situation was sufficient, why would a son be satisfied with mere sufficiency for his mother? Might a son who loved his mother try to give her the best rather than simple sufficiency?

We simply don’t know.

Why is it so important that Jesus had no siblings?

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

BrianH:

Follow this:
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. "

Why did Mary not go into the care of James, Joses, Juda, or Simon?

Mary traveled with these people

---

"Mar 3:31*** There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

**
Mar 3:32** And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. "

So if Mary traveled with these people, why would she not go into their care?
No one is even considering the other possibilities.

They were not around.
or

They were not believers and he was making a point by giving his Mom’s care to John.
This cannot be used as an argument for him not having brothers.
If you do not think he did, so be it. But he undoubtedly had close relatives…step-brothers, cousins…FAMILY…that would have made much more sense for her care to go to… Are you guys essentially saying that Mary had NO family that could care for her??

On a side note, I have been at plenty of hospital rooms where the dying has said to a lot of people, take care of my (dad, mom, kids, wife, etc). She went into his home from that very hour…John became her son…does not mean that siblings or cousins did not exist.

Correct. In order to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus had no brothers you have to accept the premise that ‘brother or sister’ is a “loose” translation or a mistranslation.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Little_Mary]

I’ll be right back

 

[BrianH]

BrianH:

Do you have anyone who claimed this within…100 years of 5 or 6 BC ? Just curious. Are your sources more than…100 years after the fact? Thanks
BH

Is the first mention the Protoevangelium of James? On Catholic websites, they like to date this as early as 120 CE. Why? What is the evidence? 120 CE defenders??? Any takers?

Hypothetically, lets even take 150 years after the fact…that would be…1856 by todays standards…interesting…

BrianH

 

[levi86]

BrianH:

Is the first mention the Protoevangelium of James? On Catholic websites, they like to date this as early as 120 CE. Why? What is the evidence? 120 CE defenders??? Any takers?

Hypothetically, lets even take 150 years after the fact…that would be…1856 by todays standards…interesting…

BrianH

I wouldn’t take this document too seriously, most theologians agree that it’s pretty much fiction. However it does give us a good indication of the beliefs that were in circulation around that period.

 

[BrianH]

levi86:

I wouldn’t take this document too seriously, most theologians agree that it’s pretty much fiction. However it does give us a good indication of the beliefs that were in circulation around that period.

yes Levi, that is what most people say…it is not what this very site says though:

“An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.”

I am, as an addition to the brothers argument, am wanting to know why anyone would support the 120 CE date. People can believe that Jesus did not have brothers I suppose, what is the first documented source for that belief though?
Thanks
BrianH

 

[MysticRose]

mariainman:

Why does it say in the Bible that Jesus had brothers and sisters if we believe he did not?

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

In the related Scripture that you are talking about it is actually talking about a whole congregation of people … therefore it would mean that all of these people are his Brethren and we know that Mary did not have a whole congregation of people … reading things in context helps a little bit

Act 1:12 Then5119 returned5290 they unto1519 Jerusalem2419 from575 the mount3735 called2564 Olivet,1638 which is3603 from1451 Jerusalem2419 a(2192) sabbath day’s4521 journey.3598

Act 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey.
Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.
Act 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 **In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): **

 

[Skripper]

It’s also important (and significant) to note that nowwhere does the Bible refer to anyone other than Jesus as being the son of Mary. None of the “brethren of the Lord” are referred to in this way . . . only Jesus.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ortho:

Who cares if he had brothers? Is that important? Why?

Yes, it is. It lends to the integrity of Mary as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). If Mary is reduced to a common woman and simply a vehicle of procreation, it by default reduces the importance of Christ Himself. Additionally, Joseph, whom Scripture identifies as a “righteous man”, wouldn’t dare lay a finger on Mary, as she had a son who’s father was still alive. This was a Hebrew custom, and for a man to lay with a woman who had a child from aother man was considered scandalous. Since God is the father of Mary’s child, Joseph would not have even considered carnal relations with Mary. This Hebrew custom, along with the traditional belief that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, lends more credibility to the belief that Joseph was an older widower who was selected to be Mary’s guardian. Joseph probably had children of his own, and these would be called Jesus’ brothers, as Aramaic had no was of distinguishing between brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, cousin, kinsmen, or even close friends.

 

[Mickey]

Scott_Lafrance:

Yes, it is. It lends to the integrity of Mary as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). If Mary is reduced to a common woman and simply a vehicle of procreation, it by default reduces the importance of Christ Himself. Additionally, Joseph, whom Scripture identifies as a “righteous man”, wouldn’t dare lay a finger on Mary, as she had a son who’s father was still alive. This was a Hebrew custom, and for a man to lay with a woman who had a child from aother man was considered scandalous. Since God is the father of Mary’s child, Joseph would not have even considered carnal relations with Mary. This Hebrew custom, along with the traditional belief that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, lends more credibility to the belief that Joseph was an older widower who was selected to be Mary’s guardian. Joseph probably had children of his own, and these would be called Jesus’ brothers, as Aramaic had no was of distinguishing between brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, cousin, kinsmen, or even close friends.

Excellent post Scott! That’s one for the files.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Skripper:

It’s also important (and significant) to note that nowwhere does the Bible refer to anyone other than Jesus as being the son of Mary. None of the “brethren of the Lord” are referred to in this way . . . only Jesus.

And also, we know specifically two of them listed as brothers are indeed cousins. All we need is one example and we have two. The burden of proof is on the disbeliever in pv to provide a specific counter-example.

Scott

 

[thistle]

Scott_Lafrance:

Yes, it is. It lends to the integrity of Mary as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). If Mary is reduced to a common woman and simply a vehicle of procreation, it by default reduces the importance of Christ Himself. Additionally, Joseph, whom Scripture identifies as a “righteous man”, wouldn’t dare lay a finger on Mary, as she had a son who’s father was still alive. This was a Hebrew custom, and for a man to lay with a woman who had a child from aother man was considered scandalous. Since God is the father of Mary’s child, Joseph would not have even considered carnal relations with Mary. This Hebrew custom, along with the traditional belief that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, lends more credibility to the belief that Joseph was an older widower who was selected to be Mary’s guardian. Joseph probably had children of his own, and these would be called Jesus’ brothers, as Aramaic had no was of distinguishing between brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, cousin, kinsmen, or even close friends.

Where is this traditional belief apart from in the Protoevangelium of James. Same goes for Joseph having children who would have been step brothers of Jesus. There is no other documented or oral tradition to support this. If there is please tell me what it is and I will stand corrected.
We know Mary was a perpetual virgin so Jesus has no siblings. As I mentioned in an earlier post it would not make sense to entrust Mary to a disciple if she had several step-children who would have taken care of her.

 

[MysticRose]

thistle:

Where is this traditional belief apart from in the Protoevangelium of James. Same goes for Joseph having children who would have been step brothers of Jesus. There is no other documented or oral tradition to support this. If there is please tell me what it is and I will stand corrected.
We know Mary was a perpetual virgin so Jesus has no siblings. As I mentioned in an earlier post it would not make sense to entrust Mary to a disciple if she had several step-children who would have taken care of her.

Actually this is not quite true either … as the Law states and I can provide it if you wish from a Jewish site that step brothers and sisters are not the same as actual Blood Brothers …

Now if Christ had a Blood Brother then it would have actually been against Jewish and Roman Law for her to be given over to anyone else but her next Heir in line … since this was not so then Jesus was free to choose whom he wanted as long as the person is willing to take her into his household … In fact, any other Family member would not have had to take her by Law and could have left her destitute if they so chose, so if she had a cousin and they said no then that was within the Law …

 

[MysticRose]

Also we know that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin for many more reasons than that or at least we should be believing that she was because of more than that reson alone …

 

[BrianH]

Scott Waddell:

And also, we know specifically two of them listed as brothers are indeed cousins. All we need is one example and we have two. The burden of proof is on the disbeliever in pv to provide a specific counter-example.

Scott

Burden of proof?!?!
So…I am to read all this and the logical conclusion was cousin?
No…you would have to have a reason to think otherwise.
Seriously do you think the Bible can be used to prove HE DID NOT HAVE BROTHERS…?

Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
** Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”**
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Gal. 1:19 - “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”

No one has answered my question about first documentation?
BH

 

[Mickey]

Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord’s entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43—44) prompts the call: “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut” (44:2).

 

[BrianH]

Scott_Lafrance:

Yes, it is. It lends to the integrity of Mary as the God-Bearer (Theotokos). If Mary is reduced to a common woman and simply a vehicle of procreation, it by default reduces the importance of Christ Himself. QUOTE]

Why?common woman? Simply procreation? Very offensive.
BrianH