Did Jesus have siblings?

[Sir_Knight]

Actually family as in kinsmen – cousins, nephews, etc.

Why would Jesus turn over His Mother to a friend if He had brothers? To do so in the Jewish tradition would have been unthinkable and would have brought shame upon His family?

Why did the Church Fathers, who believed that Mary remained ever Virgin, not remove these passages from scripture if it contradicted with their beliefs when they removed all other things that contradicted with their beliefs?

Hint, hint – it did not contradict with their beliefs because they understood the term “brothers” to mean “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend” in addition to biological brothers

 

[hellopeople]

Actually family as in kinsmen – cousins, nephews, etc.

Why would Jesus turn over His Mother to a friend if He had brothers? To do so in the Jewish tradition would have been unthinkable and would have brought shame upon His family?

Why did the Church Fathers, who believed that Mary remained ever Virgin, not remove these passages from scripture if it contradicted with their beliefs when they removed all other things that contradicted with their beliefs?

Hint, hint – it did not contradict with their beliefs because they understood the term “brothers” to mean “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend” in addition to biological brothers

Where are you getting this idea that the church fathers subtracted anything from scripture they did not agree with? If this were true, I would be less likely to believe anything the Bible said at all.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Are you saying that the church fathers actively eliminated things from the gospels that they did not agree with? Or, are you saying that they would eliminate a whole book from the Bible, one as important as Matthew, because it said one thing they didn’t agree with? Neither one of these seems probable.

As for Origen stating that Jesus did not have siblings…do you know much about Origen or how he perceived the Bible? Origen was one of the biggest proponents of an allegorical reading of scripture in church history. If a text did not make sense to him, he would disregard the literal meaning of it and look to read it allegorically. So, just because Origen mentions that Jesus did not have brothers or sister does not concede that he didn’t think that that is what it literally meant in Matthew.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church, whom Jesus promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truths, taught, and continues to teach, incorrect doctrine about Mary remaining ever Virgin? Wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar?

 

[NHInsider]

Are you saying that the church fathers actively eliminated things from the gospels that they did not agree with? Or, are you saying that they would eliminate a whole book from the Bible, one as important as Matthew, because it said one thing they didn’t agree with? Neither one of these seems probable.

No, he is saying that they actively eliminated books that they determined were not Apostolic in origin.

He is also pointing out that obviously they didn’t eliminate Matthew, and with a much closer-to-the-original understanding of the text, the same people who canonized the Scripture declared that Mary remained ever-virgin. So how do later “experts” justify trying to use one piece of Tradition to contradict another, when both pieces were passed on by the same authority?

 

[hellopeople]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church, whom Jesus promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truths, taught, and continues to teach, incorrect doctrine about Mary remaining ever Virgin? Wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar?

I get this in just about every thread I go into…Disagreeing with the Catholic Church makes Jesus a liar.

First of all you are just relying on the authority of the church, which I do not accept. So, no, I don’t think that if Mary had other children Jesus was a liar.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Where are you getting this idea that the church fathers subtracted anything from scripture they did not agree with? If this were true, I would be less likely to believe anything the Bible said at all.

Do you see the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible? Or, the gospel of Peter? Last time I checked, the bible didn’t have them. Same is true for dozens of other books.

It was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church.

Why would they exclude other writings that conflicted with apostolic tradition (including Peter and Thomas) but include these passages if they also conflicted with apostolic tradition?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I get this in just about every thread I go into…Disagreeing with the Catholic Church makes Jesus a liar.

First of all you are just relying on the authority of the church, which I do not accept. So, no, I don’t think that if Mary had other children Jesus was a liar.

Then why do you accept the bible as being the Word of God? The bible was assembled by the Catholic Church. Either they had the authority to do so or they didn’t. If they did, then they have authority over the bible and to accept the bible but reject their authority in other matters is illogical.

If they didn’t have the authority, then what other proof can you offer that the bible is indeed the Word of God. It wasn’t brought down from heaven by an angel or given to somebody on a mountain top. How can you prove that every book that is in the bible belongs in the bible and every book that was rejected from the bible should have been rejected. What proof can you offer that the Gospel of Mark (who wasn’t even a disciple of Jesus) should be in the bible but the Gospel of Thomas (who was an actual apostle) should not be in the bible?

 

[Pawel_J]

You list your religion as “Roman Catholic” but by failing to believe official Church teaching that Mary was ever Virgin as taught in CCC499-500 …
… you are considered a heretic as defined by Church Canon 751 …

I cannot help it.

 

[srlucado]

Did Jesus have siblings?

Yes.

We are all brothers in Christ.

Now, did he have *biological *brothers? No. Even though scripture doesn’t mention Jesus’s childhood much, I find it impossible to believe that there wouldn’t have been at least one “compare and contrast” story of Jesus and a brother or brothers, if he had one.

I’ll just say about this what I say about all such issues–for 2,000 years, far greater minds than mine (or yours) have been over this question, and I’ll take their word for it. Jesus was an only child of Mary.

 

[redrosetea]

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest

 

[Bastoune]

It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Mary to have sexual relations with Joseph, given the fact that she was espoused to the Holy Spirit, carrying the Incarnate Word of God.

This is an excellent article that goes through Jewish Law, Torah and Old Testament Sacred Scripture discussing the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Thus, the “brothers” could not have been children born of Mary.

Bear in mind that Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell “my brothers” about what she saw. Who are those brothers? The Scripture shows that Mary Magdalene knew it was the Apostles and disciples (John 20:17-18).

In Acts 1:12-15, we see that Jesus had 120 brothers (“adelphoi” is the word there) – I don’t think Mary, or any other woman, could have had that many children!!!

Interestingly, it`s very well documented that Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin and Zwigli all fervently defended the fact that Mary was ever-virgin:

mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

 

[panevino]

Exactly what I said For Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27 when biological brothers existed would have been unthinkable.

someone also commented that johns true biological mother was still alive at the time - is that right?

 

[NHInsider]

someone also commented that johns true biological mother was still alive at the time - is that right?

That’s true, so far as we know, St. John had both Salome and Mary in his household (although at the time of Jesus’ death James, as the older brother, would have been responsible for Salome if Zebedee was already deceased.)

 

[joplee]

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?

I am curious. what is your religious affiliation? Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary? Do you believe that for 3 years He performed the most amazing miracles, such as feeding the 5,000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, changing water into wine, and raising Lazarus from the dead? Do you believe that He died on the cross, and that He rose from the dead?

I believe these things.

Do you believe this to be true?

 

[kepha1]

Interestingly, it`s very well documented that Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin and Zwigli all fervently defended the fact that Mary was ever-virgin:
mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

Good point, Bastoune, but fragmented evangelicals dismiss the reformers claiming they don’t follow them, they follow the Bible. This is reformism in its purest form! (reformists reforming the former reformists!)

It is well documented that the reformers did not believe Mary had other children. It begs the question: when was this man made doctrine of demons made popular if not during the so called reformation? The Enlightenment Era that brought atheism and communism? But I digress. No evangelical would admit to the origins of the invention and popularity of a post-reformation doctrine of demons. They will claim the Bible has no sense of the sacred. Nothing in this world can be holy, including the Ark of the Covenant, which forshadows the real in the flesh Ark of the New Covenant, Mary. Denial of the sacred is why I call it a doctrine of demons.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Mary to have sexual relations with Joseph, given the fact that she was espoused to the Holy Spirit, carrying the Incarnate Word of God.

This is an excellent article that goes through Jewish Law, Torah and Old Testament Sacred Scripture discussing the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Thus, the “brothers” could not have been children born of Mary.

Bear in mind that Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell “my brothers” about what she saw. Who are those brothers? The Scripture shows that Mary Magdalene knew it was the Apostles and disciples (John 20:17-18).

In Acts 1:12-15, we see that Jesus had 120 brothers (“adelphoi” is the word there) – I don’t think Mary, or any other woman, could have had that many children!!!

Interestingly, it`s very well documented that Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin and Zwigli all fervently defended the fact that Mary was ever-virgin:

mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

+1

We read in Ezek. 44:2 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.
Additionally, in 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.

 

[Pawel_J]

+1

We read in Ezek. 44:2 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.

				Additionally, in 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.

Mary’s perpetual virginity must not be necessarily seen in biological categories. It can be seen as an ontological concept. This point of view was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger and also by the well known theologian Karl Adam. So, the divinity of Jesus does not result from the fact he had not a human father, but because this is an ontological fact quite independent from the biological reality. In other words presumptive human paternity of Jesus would not exclude His divine origin.

 

[calguy65]

She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times as recorded in the apocryphal text “The Nativity of Mary”, which was not included in scripture, but was considered by early believers to be accurate in its description of events and which is still held to be true by the Catholic faith. Temple virgins were commonly married off to either a widower or an older man, who would take care of them while allowing them to retain their virginity.

This is an interesting statement and I want to be sure I understand it clearly. The Nativity of Mary, an apocryphal gospel, is the basis for the RC doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? I did a review of this gospel and read the pertinent part that relates the announcement to Mary by the angel that she would conceive a son. It states in Chap. 9 that at the time she was betrothed but had not “known” a man. This very closely parallels what I understand to be the RC doctrine. However, the research I found indicates that the Nativity of Mary is a redacted version that dates to the Early Middle Ages, based on sources trace back to about the time of Jerome.

By contrast, Matthew 1:24-25 states: When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This seems to create a contradiction, and place the teaching of an apocryphal gospel above the teaching in the Bible where it plainly states that Joseph had union with Mary after the birth of a son.

The text of the Nativity of Mary gospel is available at wesley.nnu.edu/Biblical_Studies/noncanon/gospels/natmary.htm

Thank you for any factual responses.

 

[redrosetea]

Catholics don’t take 1 verse of Scripture out of context we read the entire bible for answers

But Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her afterward?"

Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the incompleteness of the “brethren of the Lord” argument. This is a good sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic. Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.

Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

 

[bluelake]

Sir Knight…you could not have said it any clearer…wonderfully said, God bless you!!!

Our Lady made the journey of the Passion with Christ for a reason, she saw the pain, the shame that Our Lord endured for us and she in all things that she does points us to her beloved Son Jesus Christ who is Our Saviour!!!

thank you.
As I said, I tend not to believe Jesus had siblings.
Excellent article.

bluelake