Did Jesus have siblings?

[inkaneer]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

Actually the opposite is true. Only recently have protestants been denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. But in the early years and centuries protestants also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary. They did so until it became “too Catholic” for protestants to do so. So they reinterpreted the scriptures by forcing a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos to mean a sibling brother. Now a strict interpretation is warranted if it can be shown that every time adelphos is used it is used to denote a sibling. However, if it can be shown where the word is obviously not used to mean a sibling then the strict interpretation is erroneous. So is there such as case in the NT scriptures? Actually the scriptures are full of instances where adelphos is used to denote other than a sibling. Do a word search using brother or brethren in the KJV and you will see them. But two examples will suffice here. First is Gal 1:10 where Paul says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” Here Paul meets Peter and one of the two Apostles named James who Paul says is the Lord’s brother adelphos]. Now were one of the two Apostles named James actually Jesus’ sibling brother and the son of Mary and Joseph? The answer is no because one Apostle named James was the sibling of the Apostle John and they were sons of Zebedee. The other Apostle named James was the son of Alphaeus. See Mt 10:2-3 for verification. So this Apostle named James was not a sibling brother of Jesus. The second example is contained in Jesus’ words to Peter in Luke 22: 31-32:

" 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. "

There the word ‘brethren’ is adelphos. Is Jesus saying that all the Apostles are siblings of Peter? We know only one, Andrew, was Peter’s sibling brother. Obviously Jesus is not using adelphos to mean a sibling brother. But there are plenty of other examples. In Php 2:25 Paul calls Epaphroditus, “my brother” but they were not related. Paul calls Timothy a brother in Col 1:1 but again they were not related. In Col 4:7 Tychicus is his brother while in Col 4:9 his brother is Onesimus. In Phm 1:20 Pauls calls Philemon his brother and in 1Co 1:1 Sosthenes is his brother while in 1Co 16:12 Apollo is his brother. And to belabor the point even more in 2Co 2:13 Titus is Paul’s brother. Paul calls all of these people his brothers adelphos] but in reality not a single one of them was his sibling.

Meanwhile the arguments for Jesus being the only child of Mary have a lot of merit. In the scriptures no one but Jesus is called a child of Mary. There is no mention of any other children when Jesus was found in the temple nor at the wedding feast at Cana. Mary was there Jesus was there even Jesus disciples were there but where are the other siblings? Funny that they were not invited. Where are the brothers to take care of Mary and why does Jesus then give her to John? But the most compelling argument, to me at least, is in Mary’s words to the angel at the announciation. In Luke 1:38 we read:

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. " [Luke 1:38]

Mary calls herself a “handmaid” of the Lord. The Greek word translated as handmaid is doule and it means a bondswoman, a handmaid, a female slave. The idea communicated by this word is that of ownership or dedication. Mary is dedicated to the Lord and to no other man. As such she will not have other children.

 

[Qoheleth]

When I read posts from people that support the idea that Mary had other children i have to think that these type of people are so disconnected from reality it absolutely blows my mind. If you actually try and think about what it would mean to you if an angel sent from God told you that your wife would give birth to the Creator of the Universe who spoke to Moses and delivered the Law to your people, the idea may come to you, that it may not even be appropriate to even think of having other children, not to mention what Mary would have thought. Yea right , Mary is so casual about giving birth to the King of King and Lord of Lords that she thought of how nice it would be for HIM to have a few brothers and sisters to grow up with.
I mean people THINK about it, put yourself in that situation. Here is the most absolute unique event in the history of the universe. The Creator of the universe takes on human form becomes man with the purpose of redeeming fallen man, and you can even think that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

 

[redrosetea]

When I read posts from people that support the idea that Mary had other children i have to think that these type of people are so disconnected from reality it absolutely blows my mind. If you actually try and think about what it would mean to you if an angel sent from God told you that your wife would give birth to the Creator of the Universe who spoke to Moses and delivered the Law to your people, the idea may come to you, that it may not even be appropriate to even think of having other children, not to mention what Mary would have thought. Yea right , Mary is so casual about giving birth to the King of King and Lord of Lords that she thought of how nice it would be for HIM to have a few brothers and sisters to grow up with.
I mean people THINK about it, put yourself in that situation. Here is the most absolute unique event in the history of the universe. The Creator of the universe takes on human form becomes man with the purpose of redeeming fallen man, and you can even think that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

Exactly…Christ was fathered by the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity…

 

[joplee]

It is amazing when you think of all the believers in Jesus Christ that they have no problem accepting all of His amazing miracles, that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that He suffered a horrible death on the cross, and that He rose from the dead!!

Yet find it implausible that a woman remained a virgin her entire life.

 

[Major_Tom]

When I read posts from people that support the idea that Mary had other children i have to think that these type of people are so disconnected from reality it absolutely blows my mind. If you actually try and think about what it would mean to you if an angel sent from God told you that your wife would give birth to the Creator of the Universe who spoke to Moses and delivered the Law to your people, the idea may come to you, that it may not even be appropriate to even think of having other children, not to mention what Mary would have thought. Yea right , Mary is so casual about giving birth to the King of King and Lord of Lords that she thought of how nice it would be for HIM to have a few brothers and sisters to grow up with.
I mean people THINK about it, put yourself in that situation. Here is the most absolute unique event in the history of the universe. The Creator of the universe takes on human form becomes man with the purpose of redeeming fallen man, and you can even think that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

Well stated. But I confess that I still don’t get the vehemance that I sometimes see regarding the issue. I don’t know if Mary had additional children, but I’ve read enough about the possibility that I’m not willing to say “No. Absolutely not”. Maybe I don;t get the vehemance, in part, because it’s not like anyone is suggesting that Mary did anything untoward. We’re not talking illicit drugs or anything. If she DID have other children, would it have been considered sinful? No, it seems to me.

And I appreciate your attempt to see it from her point of view, but that doesn’t prove anything. She WAS human, right? And had real emotions? Can you really close the door, and KNOW how she would have felt? Why couldn’t she have loved Joseph?

that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

and you can even think that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

Casual? What would make it casual?

 

[Pons]

an apocryphal gospel is the basis for the RC doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?.

No, the apocryphal gospel merely reflects that pre-existing doctrine. “The Protoevangelium of James” is the first apocryphal work to mention it. While it contains that truth and the Eastern Christian tradition that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage is also found in it, it was likely not included in the canon because it was written too late.

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son

The statement only says what it says. You read beyond what it says. It does not imply he had union with her afterward.

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

Does this imply she had children afterward?

1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Does this imply Christ’s reign will end?

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp

 

[inkaneer]

Well stated. But I confess that I still don’t get the vehemance that I sometimes see regarding the issue. I don’t know if Mary had additional children, but I’ve read enough about the possibility that I’m not willing to say “No. Absolutely not”. Maybe I don;t get the vehemance, in part, because it’s not like anyone is suggesting that Mary did anything untoward. We’re not talking illicit drugs or anything. If she DID have other children, would it have been considered sinful? No, it seems to me.

And I appreciate your attempt to see it from her point of view, but that doesn’t prove anything. She WAS human, right? And had real emotions? Can you really close the door, and KNOW how she would have felt? Why couldn’t she have loved Joseph?

that HIS Mother and Father take that entire situation so casually as to have other children blows my mind.

Casual? What would make it casual?

I guess it comes down in part to the idea of what we regard as holy and the reverence we show for it. The OT Arc of the Covenant held the manna, the Law and the rod of Aaron sympolizing the high priest office. Jesus was the NT fulfillment of the contents of the Arc and Mary is therefore considered by the very early church as the NT Arc of the Covenant. So would an OT Jew place anything in the Arc other than those items commanded by God? I doubt if the thought would even cross their minds. So why supposed christians want to with the NT Arc seems a little odd. Maybe some ‘christians’ don’t have any reverence for what is holy. That is part of it. Another part is that this idea of Mary having other children is fairly new even in protestantism. For the first centuries after the protestant revolt Mary’s perpetual virginity was unquestioned. However, with the nineteenth century came fundamentalist type movements which were very anti Catholic and with the Catholic Church’s declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception imposed their own interpretations on scripture regarding the “brethren of the Lord”. It did not matter that Mary’s perpetual virginity was a belief that was unopposed in christendom since the Apostles. It was just too Catholic for them and as a result it had to go. Today we are still seeing the result of their heresy.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

Stop trolling. We gave you enough evidence but you ignore it. All you are trying to do is stump Catholics. Please respond the other countless times where they metion alot more people as his brothers and sisters.

 

[Pons]

Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings

That’s your problem right there. The Catholic Church is the best authority on Jesus, just as Jesus is the authority in the Church.

 

[hellopeople]

Stop trolling. We gave you enough evidence but you ignore it. All you are trying to do is stump Catholics. Please respond the other countless times where they metion alot more people as his brothers and sisters.

Were they talking about his immediate family those other times?

 

[NHInsider]

Were they talking about his immediate family those other times?

That’s begging the question. You are asserting that in the cases you cite, they are talking about “His immediate family.” But proving that is precisely the question.

We have given you examples of other cases where the same word clearly does not mean “sons of the same mother,” just to show that the word doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that. You need some other piece of evidence to “prove” that the verses you cite mean what you say they mean, and not what 1800+ years of Christians understood them to mean.

 

[Qoheleth]

And I appreciate your attempt to see it from her point of view, but that doesn’t prove anything. She WAS human, right? And had real emotions? Can you really close the door, and KNOW how she would have felt? Why couldn’t she have loved Joseph?

Lol this kind of response is what i am talking about when i say it blows my mind how disconnected some are to reality, or perhaps just haven’t thought through what actually happened.

First of all why would you assume she didn’t love Joseph? Under the circumstance she probably loved him MORE than than any woman loved any man.

That said it is is inconceivable that ANYONE could trivialize the AWESOME responsibility of being the mother of GOD to the point having anything close to a normal human relationship.

The fate of everyone born in the past present and future of the entire world and yes even YOUR FUTURE DEPENDED on what would be the result of HIS living and dieing here on this little world.

We all know what happened! Jesus lived and died to set us free but we are still told to “Work out our Salvation with Fear and Trembling.” Philippians 2:12-13

If that is so for us how much more for the Holy Family where the responsibility
and care off Jesus our Lord rested.

 

[Major_Tom]

Lol this kind of response is what i am talking about when i say it blows my mind how disconnected some are to reality, or perhaps just haven’t thought through what actually happened.

Oh, cut it out! You’re the ONLY one who’s thought this through…?

So, to entertain the thought suggests a disassociation with reality?

First of all why would you assume she didn’t love Joseph? Under the circumstance she probably loved him MORE than than any woman loved any man.

Exactly. And you know what can happen when a man loves a woman.

That said it is is inconceivable that ANYONE could trivialize the AWESOME responsibility of being the mother of GOD to the point having anything close to a normal human relationship.

I’ve said my piece. But think about what you typed. She’s human. I think you’re projecting your feelings onto her. Which is fine. Empathy is great. As I said with my original post, I am not convinced there were siblings, but I’ve heard enough conjecture (Ben Witherington Jr’s book comes to mind) to ponder that it is at least concievable.

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve said my piece. But think about what you typed. She’s human. I think you’re projecting your feelings onto her. Which is fine. Empathy is great. As I said with my original post, I am not convinced there were siblings, but I’ve heard enough conjecture (Ben Witherington Jr’s book comes to mind) to ponder that it is at least concievable.

Major Tom:

I see you are a Unitarian and therefore I have to ask you which unitarian belief systems do you hold. I know you reject the Trinity in favor of a single personality of God. But to you is Jesus Christ God or was He just a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself? The reason I ask is that it bears on my response to your post.

 

[Qoheleth]

Oh, cut it out! You’re the ONLY one who’s thought this through…?

So, to entertain the thought suggests a disassociation with reality?

Exactly. And you know what can happen when a man loves a woman.

I’ve said my piece. But think about what you typed. She’s human. I think you’re projecting your feelings onto her. Which is fine. Empathy is great. As I said with my original post, I am not convinced there were siblings, but I’ve heard enough conjecture (Ben Witherington Jr’s book comes to mind) to ponder that it is at least concievable.

Oh well…maybe you have heard the old saying…“You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink”…but in this case it IS the LIVING water:thumbsup: Oh btw…some would say its all conjecture to their eternal loss:sad_bye:

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions…

By that reasoning we’d have to give up the Eucharist too.

…even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

It’s not clearly stated.

What is clear is the picture of a dysfunctional family that the Protestants paint for Mary; She had other children, they proclaim, but Jesus didn’t trust them to look after His mother.

Mary’s viginity speaks volumes for the righteous man, Joseph, who wanted to secretly separate from her because he recognised that Mary is espoused to God. There was a time when a child-bearing relationship was considered sacred, even matrimonial.

 

[phrederik]

…Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

to build on this the publication “catholicism for dummies”, pocket edition, written by 2 priests, fr trigilio and fr brighenti says on pg 56 “Jesus is referred to as the son of joseph and the son of mary, but no one else in the bible is ever called the son or daughter of joseph or mary. so many possible scenarios exist for understanding the term brother of Jesus, but only one for understanding son or daughter.”

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… If she DID have other children, would it have been considered sinful? …

If she did have other children, then she would not be espoused to God.

If she is not espoused to God, then she would not personify the Church.

If she does not personify the Church, then she is not our Mother.

If she is not our Mother, then His dying words from the cross would be empty to us: “Behold, your mother”.

 

[calguy65]

No, the apocryphal gospel merely reflects that pre-existing doctrine. “The Protoevangelium of James” is the first apocryphal work to mention it. While it contains that truth and the Eastern Christian tradition that Joseph had sons from a previous marriage is also found in it, it was likely not included in the canon because it was written too late.

The statement only says what it says. You read beyond what it says. It does not imply he had union with her afterward.

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

Does this imply she had children afterward?

1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Does this imply Christ’s reign will end?

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp

I want to thank Redostea and Pons for your responses. I am especially interested in learning where the pre-existing doctrine (regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary) is to be found. The refutation of Biblical passages regarding Mary, Joseph and Jesus’s brothers is an argument from the negative. What I mean is that it presupposes that Mary’s virginity was lifelong and that refuting the Bible verses that say otherwise proves the presupposition. It is the afffirmative proof, apart from the apocryphal infancy gospels, that I am looking for.

Thanks again for indulging my persistence with this question.

 

[Pawel_J]

I would like to come back to the ontological or metaphysical sense of Mary’s virginity. This concept leaves out the problem of biological virginity as being irrelevant.
Any sexual act has been viewed so far by the Catholic doctrine as a more or less sinful act. So it did not suite the image of the Mother of God (Theotokos) to get impurified by such ‘unclean’ act. Yet, is a sexual act within marriage with an aim to procreate really sinful? No. If it were sinful, it would be better for us to have our children fertilized in vitro. If, such sexual act cannot make anybody unclean or unworthy, so Mary’s “virginity” can and should be seen more figuratively, symbolically as a spiritual state or condition of being ready and worthy of becoming the Mother of God, to understand this fully.