Did Jesus have siblings?

[tml3625]

He is not a member of any Eastern Orthodox Church. He is a fundie evangelical who thinks his 19th century tradition of man is what truth is. Thus the word “ORTHODOX” in upper case letters. In fact,not only is he not a member of any Eastern Orthodoix Church, he is not even a good sola scripturist. He’s probably here because his minister gave a sermon telling then they should witness to Catholics.

I didn’t realize I typed Orthodox in all caps. Didn’t think it would draw strange conclusions. Greek Orthodox actually. I joined this site about 2 years ago and then forgot about it. I didn’t revisit until just last night. I was intrigued by the question posed. Did Jesus have siblings? I wondered why would a catholic discussion site pose this question? All catholics believe that Jesus had no siblings. What is the point of a catholic group asking catholic participants if Jesus had siblings? I injected crontroversial views to see what the reaction would be. I don’t believe I have ever seen so many conflicting views regarding a single subject. Contributors debating the meaning of “till” “unto” “until” “brother” “bretheren” “cousin” etc. To this poster, “x” means this. To another poster, “x” means that. Reminds me of when Clinton debated the definition of “is”. This poster believes he is right and at the same time another poster believes she is right. Mind you that the key word is believe. The beauty of religion is the ability to draw your own conclusion from a simple sentence or a paragraph. If one of you believe “until” means this or that, you will defend your belief to the end. I think the administrator who posed this question likes to read arguementary discertations. This site is worse than a political discussion site. Most of you will continually pound your chest and your keyboard to proclaim your enlightenment. Only to wake up and argue your views with someone else another day. Many of you will respond with “if you don’t like this discussion group then leave”. Thank you I will. I"ve discovered that those who love to argue their point, right or wrong is an ever flowing river that I don’t wish to float on. Please Mr. Administrator, think up some other topic to discuss that won’t cause such division.

 

[kepha1]

In terms of salvation, believing if Jesus had siblings or not is not going to be a deal maker or deal breaker. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what you believe. I don’t see how it could be a satanic lie.

It’s a satanic lie because it is an affront to the Incarnation.

As for something that is holy STAY HOLY, why would Mary not have more children. In fact, I was just told in another thread that it would be a sin if I stopped having more children with my wife for no serious reason…so why must you stay celibate to be holy?

That is why Mary had to be made different than us. Made pure. She didn’t do that herself. Mary was made holy by an act of God in order to be a perfect vessel to bring the Incarnate Christ into the world, and that “vessel-ness” cannot be shared. Mary is not a bigamist. She has One True Spouse, the Holy Spirit. Her “valid” marriage with Joseph was God’s design too. Jesus needed a human daddy and God resolved the problem.

The manner of her calling was unlike any other as well. Mary is the perfect model of faith. Both married and celibate have different and just as important roles to play in being witnesses to God’s love. Matrimony and celibacy are not on any pecking order of holiness. If you must stop having children for a time in order to meet basic parental responsibilities, Natural Family Planning will make a man out of you.

She would not have sinned if she had more children because she had a valid marriage.

She would have sinned by violating the law. God and sin cannot coexist. Take the focus off sex for a minute and try and think of Mary’s chaste relationship with God. It doesn’t mean sex is sinful, it means her chastity is holy.

In terms of the belief coming to be only after the 18th century…there have been a lot of beliefs that have only come up in the last few hundred years. It doesn’t make them any less valid at all. In fact, I would say that they would be more valid than most of what was said before just because of how we historically analyze things now.

The historical analysis of the term “cousin” in ancient Greek and Hebrew doesn’t seem to matter. Truthful beliefs develop from the Deposit of Faith. Reductionism is not development. Christianity without continuity is not Christianity.

 

[Pawel_J]

… the bible does not say Jesus had siblings. The bible says Jesus had cousins.

Where in the Bible can you see the word cousin (εξάδελφος) or nephew (anepsios / ανεψιός) used in this context? I can see only the word brother (adelfos / αδελφός) meaning brother. For cousin and nephew there are quite different words in Greek.
Why should anybody use the word brother, when he wants to say cousin or nephew. Do you use such strange language?

The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Yes. The word “brother” has a wider semantic meaning, but in Hebrew. It can apply to the Old Testament, but certainly not to the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek. It was meant mainly to be read by Christians of the gentile origin, who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic.

… 18 centuries go by and along comes evangelical cults with an opinion and you accept this doctrine of demons as infallible and everyone else before, including the early reformers, were wrong?

To be correct - 15 centuries. The protestant doctrine is dated from the 16th century, but why you call it the doctrine of demons I really don’t understand. Protestants are Christians and should be treated respectfully. If you think different, your attitude can be compared only to religious fanaticism, which is very destructive and dangerous.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Where in the Bible can you see the word cousin (εξάδελφος) or nephew (anepsios / ανεψιός) used in this context? I can see only the word brother (adelfos / αδελφός) meaning brother. For cousin and nephew there are quite different words in Greek.
Why should anybody use the word brother, when he wants to say cousin or nephew. Do you use such strange language?

Why does Gen. 11:26-28 refer to Lot as Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) while Gen. 13:8 & 14:14,16 refer to Lot as Abraham’s brother (adelphos")? Perhaps it is because the term “brother” really means kinsmen.

Yes. The word “brother” has a wider semantic meaning, but in Hebrew. It can apply to the Old Testament, but certainly not to the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek. It was meant mainly to be read by Christians of the gentile origin, who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic.

And Acts 1:12-15 of the NEW TESTAMENT tells us that the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounted to about 120. How did Mary give birth to so many children in the space of 30-40 years? She would have had to be constantly pregnant and giving birth to at least triplets with each pregnancy.

To be correct - 15 centuries. The protestant doctrine is dated from the 16th century, but why you call it the doctrine of demons I really don’t understand. Protestants are Christians and should be treated respectfully. If you think different, your attitude can be compared only to religious fanaticism, which is very destructive and dangerous.

Protestants reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They refuse to believe that a priest has the authority to forgive sins in the sacrament of Confession. What does the bible tell us about unbelievers? “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” – 2 Corinthians 6:14.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I didn’t realize I typed Orthodox in all caps. Didn’t think it would draw strange conclusions. Greek Orthodox actually. I joined this site about 2 years ago and then forgot about it. I didn’t revisit until just last night. I was intrigued by the question posed. Did Jesus have siblings? I wondered why would a catholic discussion site pose this question? All catholics believe that Jesus had no siblings. What is the point of a catholic group asking catholic participants if Jesus had siblings? I injected crontroversial views to see what the reaction would be. I don’t believe I have ever seen so many conflicting views regarding a single subject. Contributors debating the meaning of “till” “unto” “until” “brother” “bretheren” “cousin” etc. To this poster, “x” means this. To another poster, “x” means that. Reminds me of when Clinton debated the definition of “is”. This poster believes he is right and at the same time another poster believes she is right.

"… without debate, without discussion, scrutiny is not possible and it is from that scrutiny comes understanding … " – President John F. Kennedy.

Mind you that the key word is believe. The beauty of religion is the ability to draw your own conclusion from a simple sentence or a paragraph. If one of you believe “until” means this or that, you will defend your belief to the end. I think the administrator who posed this question likes to read arguementary discertations. This site is worse than a political discussion site. Most of you will continually pound your chest and your keyboard to proclaim your enlightenment. Only to wake up and argue your views with someone else another day. Many of you will respond with “if you don’t like this discussion group then leave”. Thank you I will. I"ve discovered that those who love to argue their point, right or wrong is an ever flowing river that I don’t wish to float on. Please Mr. Administrator, think up some other topic to discuss that won’t cause such division.

And were you doing anything different by arguing your position?

 

[NHInsider]

Yes. The word “brother” has a wider semantic meaning, but in Hebrew. It can apply to the Old Testament, but certainly not to the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek. It was meant mainly to be read by Christians of the gentile origin, who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic.

Your last assertion is unusual, to say the least, do you have any evidence of this? Matthew, at least, which is the source of the original question here, is generally considered by scholars to have been written for a Jewish-Christian community - hence the frequent citations showing how Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy. And of course, to the extent that the quotations preserve the actual words of the speakers, they would have been in Aramaic, and the Greek would be the writers’ best approximations, as any translation is.

And of course, the New Testament was not written “to be read” but to be proclaimed-but that’s a different thread.

To be correct - 15 centuries. The protestant doctrine is dated from the 16th century,

But all the early Reformers preserved and defended the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

but why you call it the doctrine of demons I really don’t understand. Protestants are Christians and should be treated respectfully. If you think different, your attitude can be compared only to religious fanaticism, which is very destructive and dangerous.

I would agree (as the Church does) that we should treat others with respect and that Protestants are Christians. I think the person who uses the “doctrine of demons” language would say that any individual doctrine that is false is therefore “of the devil,” so that even a person who is Christian (catholic or otherwise) may still be deceived into believing something that is untrue: hence “doctrine of demons.” But probably I should let him explain it himself.

tml3625:

Please Mr. Administrator, think up some other topic to discuss that won’t cause such division.

Questions aren’t posted by administrators, they are posted by members–some of whom have actual questions for which they seek answer, and some of whom are deliberately trying to provoke discussion. Some are here trying to convince catholics that we are wrong.

 

[inkaneer]

If we will read the bible. Jesus has siblings. It didn’t say that Mary stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. We should consult only the bible to avoid contradictions.

BUT THAT IS JUST IT !!! The Bible DOES NOT say Jesus had siblings. It says he had brothers adelphos]. That word has several meanings. If you don’t believe me then consult the KJV Greek lexicon. Now we have shown repeatedly by other scripture passages that you cannot translate the word adelphos strictly as ‘sibling’ because if you do you introduce error into the scriptures and as we all know the scriptures are error free. Now, it is time you sola scripturists put away your hatred of Catholicism and face the truth. You call yourselves christian but I have yet to see the fruits of christianity on you…

 

[inkaneer]

I didn’t realize I typed Orthodox in all caps. Didn’t think it would draw strange conclusions. Greek Orthodox actually. I joined this site about 2 years ago and then forgot about it. I didn’t revisit until just last night. I was intrigued by the question posed. Did Jesus have siblings? I wondered why would a catholic discussion site pose this question? All catholics believe that Jesus had no siblings. What is the point of a catholic group asking catholic participants if Jesus had siblings? I injected crontroversial views to see what the reaction would be. I don’t believe I have ever seen so many conflicting views regarding a single subject. Contributors debating the meaning of “till” “unto” “until” “brother” “bretheren” “cousin” etc. To this poster, “x” means this. To another poster, “x” means that. Reminds me of when Clinton debated the definition of “is”. This poster believes he is right and at the same time another poster believes she is right. Mind you that the key word is believe. The beauty of religion is the ability to draw your own conclusion from a simple sentence or a paragraph. If one of you believe “until” means this or that, you will defend your belief to the end. I think the administrator who posed this question likes to read arguementary discertations. This site is worse than a political discussion site. Most of you will continually pound your chest and your keyboard to proclaim your enlightenment. Only to wake up and argue your views with someone else another day. Many of you will respond with “if you don’t like this discussion group then leave”. Thank you I will. I"ve discovered that those who love to argue their point, right or wrong is an ever flowing river that I don’t wish to float on. Please Mr. Administrator, think up some other topic to discuss that won’t cause such division.

You claim to be Greek Orthodox but I have my doubts to that. Most of the Greek Orthodox I have met and/or conversed with have a far better grasp of doctrinal matters than you have shown. From what you have posted you appear to share beliefs common to fundamentalist evangelical denominations tainted with some New Age/Modernism ideas rather than those of a valid church. You also show a disdain of the Catholic Church that is common to fundamentalist evangelical protestants. If you were a Greek Orthodox you would know the Catholic Church was a true church with valid Apostolic Succession, valid priesthood and valid sacraments. In addition, I for one know of no Greek Orthodox who doubts Mary’s perpetual virginity or, for that matter, Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus as real and physical as you apparently do.

As for this board the name says it all. This is the Catholic Answers forum where we correct the false allegations made by protestants against the Catholic [and Orthodox too] Church. These protestants come on here and repeatedly prove that Peter was correct when he wrote about private interpretation of scripture:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
[2Peter 1:20 ]

 

[Poco]

In fact, I was just told in another thread that it would be a sin if I stopped having more children with my wife for no serious reason…

I believe the evidence for this may be apocryphal, however, if Mary had taken a vow of virginity at the Temple, that seems to be a “serious reason”!

 

[hellopeople]

I believe the evidence for this may be apocryphal, however, if Mary had taken a vow of virginity at the Temple, that seems to be a “serious reason”!

What proof do you have of this vow?

 

[NHInsider]

What proof do you have of this vow?

He doesn’t. He said “may be apocryphal” and “if Mary had” taken a vow, that would be a serious reason.

It’s an entirely hypothetical comment, and your challenge is quite disingenous.

 

[Pawel_J]

Your last assertion is unusual, to say the least, do you have any evidence of this? Matthew, at least, which is the source of the original question here, is generally considered by scholars to have been written for a Jewish-Christian community - hence the frequent citations showing how Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy. And of course, to the extent that the quotations preserve the actual words of the speakers, they would have been in Aramaic, and the Greek would be the writers’ best approximations, as any translation is.

“Most scholars today believe that canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q”.
You can read it in Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew.
I have read such opinion also in several scholarly sources.

 

[Poco]

What proof do you have of this vow?

While the use of the phase “may be apocryphal” may not have been the best choice of words (Ah! The limitations of language! ), and there seems to be no “proof” of Mary’s perpetual virginity, in the sense that we don’t seem to have any verses in Sacred Scripture stating something to the effect that “Mary remained a virgin forever after”… I will still attempt to answer your question by offering the following.

This article in the Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

Now, the Protoevangelium of James (7-8), and the writing entitled “De nativit. Mariae” (7-8), [43] state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had made, presented the child Mary in the Temple when she was three years old; that the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity on this occasion. St. Gregory of Nyssa [44] and St. Germanus of Constantinople [45] adopt this report; it is also followed by pseudo-Gregory of Nazianzus in his “Christus patiens”. [46] Moreover, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Presentation, though it does not specify at what age the child Mary was presented in the Temple, when she made her vow of virginity, and what were the special natural and supernatural gifts with which God endowed her. The feast is mentioned for the first time in a document of Manuel Commenus, in 1166; from Constantinople the feast must have been introduced into the western Church, where we find it at the papal court at Avignon in 1371; about a century later, Pope Sixtus IV introduced the Office of the Presentation, and in 1585 Pope Sixtus V extended the Feast of the Presentation to the whole Church.

(emphasis mine)

There is also this:

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).

St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

The contrary doctrine is called:

“madness and blasphemy” by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
“madness” by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
“sacrilege” by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
“impiety and smacking of atheism” by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
“perfidy” by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
“full of blasphemies” by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
“perfidy of the Jews” by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
“heresy” by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady’s virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

and in the next section of the article:

There can be no doubt as to the Church’s teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Also, I realize some of these sources may not relate to a “proof” of a “vow”.

This is probably one of those questions we will never have an answer to in this life, however, IMHO, Jesus did not have any earthly, biological siblings.

Thank you for your support, NHInsider!

 

[hellopeople]

He doesn’t. He said “may be apocryphal” and “if Mary had” taken a vow, that would be a serious reason.

It’s an entirely hypothetical comment, and your challenge is quite disingenous.

OK, so his argument is based on nothing.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The argument is based on Church tradition pre-dating the canonization of the bible AND which the bibles instructs us to adhere to.

 

[Poco]

OK, so his argument is based on nothing.

I wouldn’t say it is based on “nothing”. I would suggest you review my previous post #219 and Sir Knight’s post #221.

 

[Ignatius]

In asking “Did Jesus have siblings?” I assume that you mean by Mary. The answer is no. If you read your bible you will find that James and Joses (Joseph) called the brothers of the Lord were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopes.

 

[inkaneer]

In asking “Did Jesus have siblings?” I assume that you mean by Mary. The answer is no. If you read your bible you will find that James and Joses (Joseph) called the brothers of the Lord were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopes.

With all due respects to my fellow Catholic posters I, biased as I admit I am, do believe that my two responses to this question of did Mary have other children are legitimate answers and quite valid. My responses were:

1. Mary’s response to the Angel. She said she was the “handmaid of the Lord” The Greek word translated as "handmaid is doule and it means a female slave or a bondwoman. It is hardly a term that one heard nowadays in an age of alleged enlightenment and woman’s liberation. But in the first century things were different. In any event the word conveys the thought of belonging or being the property of or being dedicated to someone or something. Scripture says of Joseph that he was a righteous man, some translations say "upright, some say a “just” man. The idea conveyed is that Joseph is a man of principle and has the proper respect for things that a man of principle would have both secularly as well and probably more important, religiously. So now we ask the question of whether a woman who considers herself dedicated to God to the point of carrying God’s only begotten Son in her womb would allow a man to violate her dedication? Also, could a man who was upright, just and righteous violate her dedication and remain upright, just and righteous as the scripture say he is?

Not a single response from any sola scripturist to refute that arguement. Instead they ignore it as they do with other things in the scriptures that contradict their doctrines. Next is my response # 2. This is the one I called the elephant in the room that no one wants to admit its presence.

1. The elephant is the silence over the centuries of anyone claiming to be related by blood to Jesus through Mary, His mother. In the world of early christianity where cities and towns would boast of having this or that saint or Apostle’s body and where bishops proudly told of their succession from this or that Apostle there is no claim, indeed, there is not even a whimper of a claim of anyone claiming to be that brother of Jesus mentioned in the scriptures. If there was ever a name of a person that would command the utmost respect be given to the one who claimed to be related to that person it would be the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But there is a silence. And that silence ROARS across the centuries to us today.

 

[bobmeyer58]

Mathew 13:55 states:

55"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Knowing that the church has stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin, where do these brothers come into place?

No one except Jesus is called the carpenter’s son. In those times the father of a Jewish person was very important, so if Joseph had been the father of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas I think they would have been called Joseph’s sons.

John 19:25 states: •Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas (this means that she was Jesus’ aunt and her sons’ Jesus’ cousins.), and Mary Magdalene.
James father is listed as Cleophas (Clopas) John 19:25
The other James father name is Zebedee Mat 10:2
The last James fathers name is Alphaeus Mark 3:18
Not one James is mentioned as the son of Joseph.

 

[mark_a]

sir,
I was just reading about this last night during my bible study.
I’m also aware of the ‘cousin’ interpretation. I have several bibles and they give conflicting interpretations.
I tend to believe Jesus did not have siblings. I also think this isn’t a salvation issue.
Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is God robed in flesh. Its difficult for me to accept that God the Father had siblings.

what do you think?

God bless,
bluelake

I think that’s some pretty clear reasoning.