Did Jesus have siblings?

[Roamin_Xian]

The thing is that we, as Catholics, can’t simply pretend that the Council of Trent didn’t happen.

And we Anglicans and Protestants can’t pretend that…the Bible didn’t happen?

 

[rolltidefan]

The thing is that we, as Catholics, can’t simply pretend that the Council of Trent didn’t happen.

HEY Peter! Good to see you again. I am not telling the Catholics to pretend or not to pretend. I am just stating that I really don’t see how any of it, makes Mary any less of who she was, regardless of who is right and wrong. I personally don’t see why she shouldn’t have went on been a happily married woman. Anyway, just me stating that I don’t see why it really matters either way. But with that being said, as someone else said, I also believe in what the bible tells me about these things.

 

[Bill_Pick]

For Mary ever to have had sexual relations with anyone following the conception of Jesus would mean that Jesus had an adulterous for a mother, an unthinkable consideration for anyone who calls himself a Christian. While the foster father of Jesus passed from this life, God the Father has never ceased to exist in His natural state. No true Christian would ever believe that the brothers and sisters referred to in Scripture were anything other than near relatives – probably either first or second cousins.

 

[Rightlydivide]

For Mary ever to have had sexual relations with anyone following the conception of Jesus would mean that Jesus had an adulterous for a mother, an unthinkable consideration for anyone who calls himself a Christian. While the foster father of Jesus passed from this life, God the Father has never ceased to exist in His natural state. No true Christian would ever believe that the brothers and sisters referred to in Scripture were anything other than near relatives – probably either first or second cousins.

How can she be guilty of adultery? We believe she only had sex with one man; her husband Joseph after Christ was born. Mary was never married to anyone else…

 

[AshleyBelle]

How can she be guilty of adultery? We believe she only had sex with one man; her husband Joseph after Christ was born. Mary was never married to anyone else…

This is something I hadn’t realized before…

I know that the Marian dogmas are all Christ cenetered…they were defined to combat heresy and give us a better understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.

Her perpetual virginity, I had assumed was just a tradition handed to us by those who actually knew Mary, but I think I understand now what it’s meant to reaffirm for our faith… Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Daughter of the Father, and the spouse of the Holy ghost. To say that she had other children would go against our understanding of her relationship to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is something I hadn’t realized before…

I know that the Marian dogmas are all Christ cenetered…they were defined to combat heresy and give us a better understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.

Her perpetual virginity, I had assumed was just a tradition handed to us by those who actually knew Mary, but I think I understand now what it’s meant to reaffirm for our faith… Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Daughter of the Father, and the spouse of the Holy ghost. To say that she had other children would go against our understanding of her relationship to the Holy Spirit.

She is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her husband was Joseph. You cannot have two husbands.

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Her perpetual virginity, I had assumed was just a tradition handed to us by those who actually knew Mary, but I think I understand now what it’s meant to reaffirm for our faith… Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Daughter of the Father, and the spouse of the Holy ghost. To say that she had other children would go against our understanding of her relationship to the Holy Spirit.

So the Roman Catholic Church confirms Mary in adultery by recognizing Joseph as her husband? That’s a rather odd notion.

 

[AshleyBelle]

She is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her husband was Joseph. You cannot have two husbands.

I didn’t say she had two husbands… But I agree that the teaching of her perpetual virginity is important for understanding the nature of Jesus.

He is fully God, and fully man. Fully the father, son and Holy Spirit, and fully the son

So Mary is uniquely united to each of the three persons, because of the nature of her son.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Douay-Rheims Bible

Matthew 1:25

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Where in the Bible does it state that they never engaged in marital relations? All this quote says is that they did not engage in intercourse prior to her magical impregnation by God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I didn’t say she had two husbands… But I agree that the teaching of her perpetual virginity is important for understanding the nature of Jesus.

He is fully God, and fully man. Fully the father, son and Holy Spirit, and fully the son

So Mary is uniquely united to each of the three persons, because of the nature of her son.

You said her spouse was the Holy Spirit.
She had one husband, Joseph.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

So Mary is uniquely united to each of the three persons, because of the nature of her son.

That’s an interesting interpretation, but perpetual virginity wouldn’t give her that. Her role as mother would, though.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Douay-Rheims Bible

Matthew 1:25

Where in the Bible does it state that they never engaged in marital relations? All this quote says is that they did not engage in intercourse prior to her magical impregnation by God.

First of all… there was no “magical impregnation by God.” The incarnation is a great mystery…who of us can say with our finite understanding that we FULLY grasp God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit coming down and taking on the flesh, becoming a babe in Mary’s womb?

And I know the passage you quoted.. "not til" or "not until" simply means what it says... It doesn't imply that she had relations after the fact, it means that she was a virgin at the incarnation. It makes no mention of whether she was after or not. "Until" does not mean that she absolutely did after the birth of Jesus.

And please see my post above… The teaching about Mary’s perpetual virginity is mean to uphold the nature of Christ. I am not a scholar, nor an expert on Catholic theology, so I may not express it that articulately… But when understood in context of the person of Jesus, the Marian dogmas make so much more sense.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

And I know the passage you quoted… “not til” or “not until” simply means what it says… It doesn’t imply that she had relations after the fact, it means that she was a virgin at the incarnation. It makes no mention of whether she was after or not. “Until” does not mean that she absolutely did after the birth of Jesus.

The passage only states that they did not engage in intercourse while she was pregnant- I would postulate that was to maintain the integrity of Jesus’ virgin birth. Of course they had relations- that’s why he had half-brothers. Not all passages about Jesus’ brethern could only refer to “cousins.” That is otherwise some extreme hope to the contrary.

The RCC is alone on this one- even the Orthodox don’t go this far on Marian dogma (except maybe about the failed ‘brothers’ conundrum)

 

[AshleyBelle]

The passage only states that they did not engage in intercourse while she was pregnant- I would postulate that was to maintain the integrity of Jesus’ virgin birth. Of course they had relations- that’s why he had half-brothers. Not all passages about Jesus’ brethern could only refer to “cousins.” That is otherwise some extreme hope to the contrary.

The RCC is alone on this one- even the Orthodox don’t go this far on Marian dogma (except maybe about the failed ‘brothers’ conundrum)

There are many thing the Catholic Church has stood "alone" on proclaiming through the years... And the fact that she upholds these teachings regardless of outside opinion only strengthens my faith that she is led by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact the True Church:)

 

[Bill_Pick]

There are many thing the Catholic Church has stood “alone” on proclaiming through the years… And the fact that she upholds these teachings regardless of outside opinion only strengthens my faith that she is led by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact the True Church

amen

 

[Roamin_Xian]

There are many thing the Catholic Church has stood “alone” on proclaiming through the years… And the fact that she upholds these teachings regardless of outside opinion only strengthens my faith that she is led by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact the True Church

And that’s your opinion to which you are entitled. Most Christians see the ''perpetual virginity of Mary" as alien doctrine with no basis of Scripture. All the Scripture says is that Jesus was born from a virgin, and that Joseph and Mary abstained from sex while she was pregnant “until” she had given birth to her firstborn. No Scriptural support for this Roman innovation.

 

[AshleyBelle]

And that’s your opinion to which you are entitled. Most Christians see the ''perpetual virginity of Mary" as alien doctrine with no basis of Scripture. All the Scripture says is that Jesus was born from a virgin, and that Joseph and Mary abstained from sex while she was pregnant “until” she had given birth to her firstborn. No Scriptural support for this Roman innovation.

While I could agree that there is no scriptural "proof" that Mary was ever virgin.. I wouldn't go so far as to say this teaching is not at all supported by scripture.

It all comes down to what is a pretty common subject on these boards… who do you trust? If left to interpret the scriptures on your own outside of the tradition of the Church, how do you know that you are drawing the right conclusions? You don’t have to answer that…there are plenty of threads on the subject But I’m trying to illustrate, that for me personally, Scripture makes so much more sense and really comes to life, when read in light of Sacred Tradition.

Here is some scriptural support for Mary’s perpetual virginity…summarized on ScriptureCatholic.com

Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Brother-theory takes the term άδελφοί in the usual sense, and regards the brothers as younger children of Joseph and Mary, consequently as full brothers of Jesus in the eyes of the law and the opinions of the people, though really only half-brothers, in view of his supernatural conception. This is exegetically the most natural view and favored by the meaning of άδελφός (especially when used as standing designation), the constant companionship of these brethren with Mary (John 2:12; Matt. 12:46; 13:55), and the obvious meaning of Matt. 1:25, and Luke 2:7, as explained from the standpoint of the evangelists, who used these terms in full view of the subsequent history of Mary and Jesus. The only serious objections to it is of a doctrinal and ethical nature, viz., the assumed perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord and Saviour, and the committal of her at the cross to John rather than her own sons and daughters (John 19:25-27). If it were not for these two obstacles the brother-theory would probably be adopted by every fair and honest exegete. The first of these objections dates from the post-apostolic ascetic overestimate of virginity, and cannot have been felt by Matthew and Luke, else they would have avoided these ambiguous terms just noticed. The second difficulty presses also on the other two theories, only in a less degree. It must therefore be solved on other grounds, namely, the profound spiritual sympathy and congeniality of John with Jesus and Mary, which rose above carnal relationships, the probable cousinship of John (based upon the proper interpretation of the same passage, John 19:25), and the unbelief of the real brethren at the time of the committal.

This theory was held by Tertullian (whom Jerome summarily disposes of as not being a “homo ecclesiae” i.e. a schismatic), defended by Helvidius at Rome about 380 (violently attacked as a heretic by Jerome), and by several individuals and sects opposed to the incipient worship of the Virgin Mary; and recently by the majority of German exegetes since Herder, such as Stier, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Ewald, Wieseler, Keim, also by Dean Alford, and Cannon Farrar (Life of Christ, I. 97 sq.).

Phillip Schaff

 

[ralphinal]

For those who use the “until” argument, there was a woman in the Old Testement who had no children UNTIL she died. I guess they were born later…

Biblically, the brethren of the Lord are not called the children of Mary…

There is a logic to him not having any blood siblings by Mary. Humans being Humans, this could have led to a power struggle or rival factions within the early Church.

 

[ChristIsLord]

For Mary ever to have had sexual relations with anyone following the conception of Jesus would mean that Jesus had an adulterous for a mother, an unthinkable consideration for anyone who calls himself a Christian. While the foster father of Jesus passed from this life, God the Father has never ceased to exist in His natural state. No true Christian would ever believe that the brothers and sisters referred to in Scripture were anything other than near relatives – probably either first or second cousins.

this tends to be my feeling on the matter too, the bible states mary was “overshadowed” by the holy spirit and became pregnant (by something other than her husband joseph vows were exchanged and they were bethrothed to each other already). this would have to mean mary was able to be bethrothed to joseph (they were already bethrothed when mary became pregnant) but the marriage could never be consumated unless it render mary an adulteress. i find jesus “brothers” and sisters not being at the crucifixion is very compelling too. in judaism a mother is not left alone or given to others to look after if she has able bodied children somewhere running about.

there is absolutely no reason why the brothers or sisters referenced couldn’t mean joseph’s children (since we never know josephs age), or close cousins. people didn’t tend to live in nuclear families, cousins were much closer than today and sharing houses is not uncommon all over the world even today.