Did Jesus have siblings?

[Rightlydivide]

With good reason.

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before?

This was not a normal circumstance.

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus.

Having read your link, and so forth, the author takes cultural norms and practices, and assumes adherence. This cuts both ways when we talk about the family of Christ. For example, Jewish custom would not have a woman (Mary) in the care of a nonfamily member (John) but according to your belief system she had either tons of nephews or step-children, or even sisters and their husbands, who did not care for her. So that cultural norms, are just that. There are no Jewish laws requiring him to have sex with her. Of course not.

Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.)

You have, and the article, overstated your case based upon your starting presuppositons which I do not agree with.

Under Jewish, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also. And Joseph, (if for no other reason, but we know there was one) being a “righteous man” would have been obedient to Jewish law whether or not anyone else knew about the origins of the Child.

Jewish law does not have provisions for children born without an earthly father. Laws applying to human fathers do not apply to children born without intercourse…do they?

Further, in Jewish law, a master was allowed to to be intimate with an unmarried slave woman but he must thence marry her and treat her like a full wife not a concubine.* In essence he has “dibs” on her over and above anyone else’s claim but he must carry through with full matrimony. When Mary said, “Behold the HANDMAIDEN of the Lord.*Let it be done to me according to your word,”*she was indicating that she considered God to be her master and that she was acepting His proposal of marriage over Joseph’s betrothal claim.

For more on this see: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Once again, the starting presuppositon is that Mary and Joseph are bound by laws that cannot be proven or assumed to apply to children born of a virgin.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am also curious if you support the articles view that Mary and the Holy Spirit had sex?

By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For “to lay one’s power (reshuth) over a woman” (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her.”

Likewise “to overshadow” (Lk 1:35) by spreading the “wing” or “cloak” over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him “I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, “wing”: kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin” (Ruth 3:9).

 

[AshleyBelle]

I am also curious if you support the articles view that Mary and the Holy Spirit had sex?

NO.

 

[Peter_J]

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

As Gene Wilder once said: Well of course. That goes without saying.

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

Alright, but let me put it to you this way:

Protestants believe that X is false. (X, in this case, being the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, but it could also be a number of other things, e.g. Papal Infallibility.) Catholics believe that X is true, and that X is binding, mandatory belief.

So then a bare minimum for reconciliation to take place, is that one of these two things would have to happen:

• Protestants change their minds and decide that X is true, or
• Catholics change their minds and decide that X is not a binding mandatory belief.

 

[Shai22]

Well… in addition to the fact that “brother and sister” could have very well meant “cousin” or “relative” (and I think somebody posted a while back that we actually know exactly which relatives were being referred to?)… Why do we not hear of these siblings during the passion of our Lord?

This is true, but when people ask you the question of whether or not he had siblings, tell them yes he had thousands of them and quote Matthew 12:50 Jesus is speaking. Whoever does what my Father in heaven wants, is my brother, my sister and my mother.

So in this scripture he has siblings.

 

[Peter_J]

Notice the Catholic is calling Mary names, not us.

Well I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I would like to meet “the Catholic”. Could you introduce me, since you seem to know “the Catholic”?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Please help me know.How many brothers,sisters,cousins Jesus had , with there names and life accounts if any?

Thanks

 

[marchoi]

Here’s why I think the perpetual virginity of Mary (which is the subject of the thread, not sola scriptura, Queenship of Mary, etc) makes sense.

During the Annunciation as presented to us in Luke 1, the Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son, he will be great and called the Son of the Most High, etc. etc. To which Mary replies, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Tell me if the Greek is the same here, I don’t know Greek.)

Now, if we were to assume that Mary did not intend to remain a virgin her entire life, we have to ask, “She had to ask how it’s done?” In other words, go up to any woman who plans on getting married, having sex, etc. and tell her, “You will bear a son.” And perhaps she’ll say, “Great,” maybe “Darn, I wanted a girl,” but certainly not, “But how can it be, since I have not had relations [yet]?” (The [yet] part doesn’t really matter, I think.) The fact that Mary replies, “How can it be?” seems to indicate to me that Mary never intended to have relations with a man.

How does this interpretation hold up? Does the original Greek agree with my understanding of events?

 

[SIA]

This is one of the most common questions I’ve heard arise when people are questioning the Church teaching about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Most will refer to the passage where Jesus is told his mother and brothers are asking for Him. The best reply I’ve heard for that argument, is the fact that the original language had no distinction between 'brother, sister, " and “cousin” or other relatives.

The arguments ussually go in circles, and non Catholic Christians aren’t satisfied because they don’t adhere to the idea of Sacred Tradition being as true and important as scripture.

Today I was teaching my son the song “immaculate Mary” (He was doing really well I might add! He actually gets the “salve salve, salve Regina” part much more clearly than the english words lol)… And I started thinking about all the objections lately about our beliefs concerning the blessed Mother. It saddens me so much to hear so much rejection of her from other Christians, especially during the Christmas season!

And this thought came to mind.. How would I respond if somebody tried to convince me that Jesus had other siblings?

Well… in addition to the fact that “brother and sister” could have very well meant “cousin” or “relative” (and I think somebody posted a while back that we actually know exactly which relatives were being referred to?)… Why do we not hear of these siblings during the passion of our Lord?

I mean think about it… At His last moments, Jesus doesn’t say to his “sibling” “Behold, your Mother!” … He says it to the disciple whom He loved.

If He really did have siblings, wouldn't they be responsible for their Mother? Why didn't He say "brother and sister, please take care of our Mother?"  Why are these siblings never named?

So in short… I don’t mean to cause discension, but this is one of the subject I hear so often when people reject Mary as the Mother of the Church, immaculately concieved, perpetual virgin, and Queen of heaven.

Thoughts?

Jesus absolutely did have siblings.

 

[marchoi]

Jesus absolutely did have siblings.

Wow… Look up “cliff-hanger” in the dictionary and you’ll see that. Care to explain a little bit?

 

[Peter_J]

No true sibling relationship could ever be established using your interpretation.

That’s an over-generalization. We certainly know that Joseph and Benjamin were full-brothers, and that Joseph and Judah were half-brothers, etc.

 

[ralphinal]

It absolutely is not. However, it is a huge deal and infallible for you guys I believe. I do not make a big deal out of it. Because our view is attacked, even stated that we think she was a harlot, I feel compelled to defend our view. It is not something that comes up when witnessing to people…no.

First, it is one person’s opinion based upon an understanding that is, in my opinion, dated and misleading. I strongly doubt that many Catholics today, including the clergy, would say that in denying her perpetual virginity you are calling her a harlot or anything else.

Second, the only reason that Catholics have to beleive it is because the Church said so. Not because it indicates anything needed or required for salvation. As a Catholic, I am required to trust Holy Mother Church.

Finally, as we both agree that Scripture is not definite on either side (SIA, you know that it is abiguous), we can hold our veiw without contradicting anything.

 

[Rightlydivide]

First, it is one person’s opinion based upon an understanding that is, in my opinion, dated and misleading. I strongly doubt that many Catholics today, including the clergy, would say that in denying her perpetual virginity you are calling her a harlot or anything else.

Second, the only reason that Catholics have to beleive it is because the Church said so. Not because it indicates anything needed or required for salvation. As a Catholic, I am required to trust Holy Mother Church.

Finally, as we both agree that Scripture is not definite on either side (SIA, you know that it is abiguous), we can hold our veiw without contradicting anything.

Thank you for a good conversation. Something that does not happen too much around here…
Blessings

 

[FCEGM]

There are no Jewish laws requiring him to have sex with her. Of course not.

But there are Jewish laws requiring him to abstain from intimate relations with her - that is the point.

Jewish law does not have provisions for children born without an earthly father. Laws applying to human fathers do not apply to children born without intercourse…do they?

Jewish law does not have provisions for children born without an earthly father. Laws applying to human fathers do not apply to children born without intercourse…do they?

Given your arguments, then, why would Jesus Himself be obedient to the Law? And why, except for religious prejudice, would you quibble that as faithful Jews His Mother and foster-father would have been just as observant, especially given the glorious things happening to them?

 

[FCEGM]

I am also curious if you support the articles view that Mary and the Holy Spirit had sex?

The article says no such thing. The author is simply presenting the strength and depth of the language used that identify the overshadowing of Mary with the privilege of a husband, and thus the singularity of her relationship with God, and thus why this relationship which formed the Child in her womb prohibits any human claim for marital rights on she who is the Ark of the New Covenant. This title of the Virgin recalls another level of meaning of “overshadowing”, which, likewise, illustrates the uniqueness of the Mother and Child, i.e., the overshadowing of the tabernacle in the wilderness, this overshadowing echoing the hovering of the Spirit over the waters at Creation. Thus we have the New Creation born from the overshadowing of Mary, whose flesh is fittingly inviolate because of the One Whom she bore.

I find it telling you find the reality of the marital significance of the overshadowing of Mary distasteful while at the same time being so accepting that the womb of the chosen Mother of God would not have been inviolate

 

[marchoi]

Here’s why I think the perpetual virginity of Mary (which is the subject of the thread, not sola scriptura, Queenship of Mary, etc) makes sense.

During the Annunciation as presented to us in Luke 1, the Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son, he will be great and called the Son of the Most High, etc. etc. To which Mary replies, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Tell me if the Greek is the same here, I don’t know Greek.)

Now, if we were to assume that Mary did not intend to remain a virgin her entire life, we have to ask, “She had to ask how it’s done?” In other words, go up to any woman who plans on getting married, having sex, etc. and tell her, “You will bear a son.” And perhaps she’ll say, “Great,” maybe “Darn, I wanted a girl,” but certainly not, “But how can it be, since I have not had relations [yet]?” (The [yet] part doesn’t really matter, I think.) The fact that Mary replies, “How can it be?” seems to indicate to me that Mary never intended to have relations with a man.

How does this interpretation hold up? Does the original Greek agree with my understanding of events?

Come on, somebody’s gotta have something to say about this…

 

[Peter_J]

It absolutely is not. However, it is a huge deal and infallible for you guys I believe. I do not make a big deal out of it. Because our view is attacked, even stated that we think she was a harlot, I feel compelled to defend our view. It is not something that comes up when witnessing to people…no.

Hi Rightlydivide (and Ralphinal),

There are a number of “Catholic ideas” that are not dogmas (“co-redemptrix” is probably the most frequently given example, although Mary as “queen of heaven” would probably be an even better example since it has a feast day and a decade of the rosary).

In particular, the idea that Mary is the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” is a fairly well-established belief, but not a dogma.

The teaching that Mary never had sex with anyone is a dogma. However, the idea that Mary and Joseph couldn’t have sex without committing adultery, is not a dogma or even a well-established belief.

 

[elvisman]

Hoes hou always indicates a change. Both passages you quoted do as well.
I have had this debate. I am actually a little more interested in the other debates. I understand your perspective.

Your argument is flawed because you can’t give another - or clearer instance for this supposed sexual union. All you can do is to come up with names of relatives who are listed as the children of another Mary and her husband Cleopas (Alphaeus).

---

The word used in Matt. 1:18 (sunerchomai) does not connote that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations – simply that they lived together. Later, in verse 25, the word “hoes hou”, when seen in context with other passages, does not offer proof either.

---

Your insistence on the position that hoes hou**** always ***means change would have us believe that Jesus lied to us in the verses I gave to you *

---

Your earlier comment in Post #81 states that “She did have relations with her husband Joseph IMO based upon scripture.”***** I submit to you that you cannot* and have not proven this.**

---

***Finally, I simply cannot accept that you – a person of the 21st century can offer me a ******clearer ****opinion or know more about the matter than the giants of the faith who preceded you by almost 2000 years and lived a mere 2 or 3 centuries after the fact. The Early Church Fathers disagree with you - namely, ***Leporius, Athanasius, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan, Didymus the Blind, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Hilary of Poitiers.

 

[NDfan]

That’s an over-generalization. We certainly know that Joseph and Benjamin were full-brothers, and that Joseph and Judah were half-brothers, etc.

It’s not an over-generalization. And you are referring to the OT which makes it clear by telling us which women each child belonged to. In the NT we have to examine the way the Greek is written to decipher what the relationship actually is. The deduction Jimmy was making would never allow us to determine these relationships.

 

[NDfan]

Here’s why I think the perpetual virginity of Mary (which is the subject of the thread, not sola scriptura, Queenship of Mary, etc) makes sense.

During the Annunciation as presented to us in Luke 1, the Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son, he will be great and called the Son of the Most High, etc. etc. To which Mary replies, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Tell me if the Greek is the same here, I don’t know Greek.)

Now, if we were to assume that Mary did not intend to remain a virgin her entire life, we have to ask, “She had to ask how it’s done?” In other words, go up to any woman who plans on getting married, having sex, etc. and tell her, “You will bear a son.” And perhaps she’ll say, “Great,” maybe “Darn, I wanted a girl,” but certainly not, “But how can it be, since I have not had relations [yet]?” (The [yet] part doesn’t really matter, I think.) The fact that Mary replies, “How can it be?” seems to indicate to me that Mary never intended to have relations with a man.

How does this interpretation hold up? Does the original Greek agree with my understanding of events?

Marchoi if you study the Greek you will see that the tense of the sentence impacts what is being said here. The Angel is telling Mary that she will conceive in the present tense. That it’s going to happen like right now. Mary being betrothed and not finalizing the marriage for possibly several months doesn’t understand how this could happen immediately as the Angel is saying.

The Greek word used for man is the word Aner which in Greek is an affectionate term used when a woman refers to her husband. So Mary wasn’t saying how can this be since I don’t know a man, implying she would never have sex. The strict tense of the text would show Mary’s response as being: how can this be since I have not yet had sex with my husband. Not that she never planned to. But the timing to her would conflict with what the Angel was telling her. The Angel is speaking that it will happen immediately to which Mary’s understanding is prior to marriage.

PEACE