Did Jesus have siblings?

[joplee]

Yes, He did. I think that this is one of the situations where Catholic teaching managed to trip itself up. The church holds quite literally to the words in John’s gospel (Chapter 6) where Jesus talks about the bread and wine becoming His body and blood but in the same chapter opts for a less than literal translation regarding Christ’s siblings. That can be confusing to any Bible student. The giving over of Mary to John’s care can simply be because His siblings did not believe in Him; indeed, thought him daft. Those verses (John 19: 26, 27) beg for a literal translation, as well, given the fact that John’s response was to take her into his home.
Of course, as one replier mentioned, this has nothing to do with salvation by faith. However, these issues have caused divisions among the faithful.

Not to get to far off topic but the above post makes an interesting observation. It is exactly because of these different interpretations that the Magisterium is vital to keeping to the teaching of Christ. The Church has been combating against incorrect teaching since the Apostolic days. Individual interpretation of scripture guided by the guise of the Holy Spirit is fraught with danger, as can be seen by the splintering of denominations of believers in Christ. Without the teaching authority of the Church, giving to the Church by Christ, the Catholic Church would not have been able to withstand the onslaught of different interpretations. In fact, without this teaching authority of the Catholic Church, the Bible, as we know it today, would not exist.

Christ said that He is the Truth. The Church that He established would it not then be the Truth as well? And if Christ said that “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Christ’s Church will last, in all its purity, until the end of time.

Rev. John Markoe so aptly states, "A family is Irish, if of Irish descent. Similarly, that Church is the true Church of Christ which goes back to Christ. The only Church which goes back to Christ is the Catholic Church. All others, started by men, are impostures.

I pray for the unity of Christ’s Church.

 

[ConnieMelton]

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.

I have to think that if Jesus truly had siblings, that this would be stated adamantly in the Bible. Something that important to be just skipped over? Left for us to guess? If it did not violate Hebrew law, then why wouldn’t it be stated as a fact? I think just the ommision tells us that there were not any siblings.

 

[sedonaman]

When and why did everyone all of a sudden start using the term “siblings” anyway? In my day, we called them brothers and sisters, which sounds much more human than “siblings”. “Siblings” sounds so clinical — as though we are all members of a litter of piggies.

 

[zoltangz]

When and why did everyone all of a sudden start using the term “siblings” anyway? In my day, we called them brothers and sisters, which sounds much more human than “siblings”. “Siblings” sounds so clinical — as though we are all members of a litter of piggies.

Sib·ling (s¹b“l¹ng) n. One of two or more individuals having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister. [Middle English, from Old English, from sibb, kinsman. See SIB.]

According to the dictionary it is from Old English, but as a Hungarian born we quite naturally use in Europe the equivalent of ‘sibling’ meaning the person could be either a male or female instead of outrightly stating brother or sister, and the direct translations would be: “bodyblood” … coming from the same body and blood of same mother and father.

“PEACE”

 

[lizzyp]

As a Roman Catholic, I believe that Mary was “ever virgin”. I can’t comprehend it any other way. “Sir Knight” explains it perfectly. I can’t recite verses of the bible, or know how to defend the issue. I just believe it, because I was raised a Catholic and believed it. There is no doubt in my mind. No other religion or those who believe differently will ever change my mind. Mary had only one child, Jesus who was conceived through the Holy Spirit. Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’ birth.

 

[sedonaman]

Sib·ling (s¹b“l¹ng) n. One of two or more individuals having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister. [Middle English, from Old English, from sibb, kinsman. See SIB.]

According to the dictionary it is from Old English, but as a Hungarian born we quite naturally use in Europe the equivalent of ‘sibling’ meaning the person could be either a male or female instead of outrightly stating brother or sister, and the direct translations would be: “bodyblood” … coming from the same body and blood of same mother and father.

“PEACE”

Doesn’t answer my question, when and why did everyone all of a sudden start using the term “siblings” anyway?

 

[choy]

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.

the importance of Mary’s virginity, both physically and spiritually is the fact that her womb carried the Son of God. any sexual act would defile it, no matter if the act was sinful or not. its like you cannot just consecrate any bread and any wine into the body and blood of Christ. its because that those matter becomes the body and blood of Christ, it must be of pure origin, nothing artifical added into it. and it doesn’t mean any other bread nor any other wine is dirty or sinful or whatever.

 

[choy]

Doesn’t answer my question, when and why did everyone all of a sudden start using the term “siblings” anyway?

it depends on the context of the culture

do you know that in Chinese and Japanese, there is a different term for each son and each daughter as the parent would call them. and from one sibling to another, there is a different term depending on birth order?

so if there are 4 siblings, the 4th one will call the first one differently than he would call the second one, and there is a separate term for male and female

its really rather complicated

but my point is, different cultures have different ways of calling relatives, some more specific than others.

and going back to Chinese, i know someone who calls her cousins as brothers and sister, especially now under the one child rule, she can’t have any real brothers and sisters in the sense of the word

 

[simspt]

Was the doctrine of continuous or perpetual virginity of Mary universally accepted by Christians from the beginning? East and West?

Did post-Apostolic Christians make use make use of some interpretations of passages in the NT while passing over others that were more difficult like Jn. 1:45, 6:42 and Luke 4:22?

Was the eventual belief that Jesus had siblings (blood brother) a product of the Enlightenment that rejected their Protestant founder Calvin and Luther who affirmed the Catholic position?

How does Luke contribute to this debate when he writes in Lk. 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about 30 years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”

 

[sedonaman]

it depends on the context of the culture

do you know that in Chinese and Japanese, there is a different term for each son and each daughter as the parent would call them. and from one sibling to another, there is a different term depending on birth order?

so if there are 4 siblings, the 4th one will call the first one differently than he would call the second one, and there is a separate term for male and female

its really rather complicated

but my point is, different cultures have different ways of calling relatives, some more specific than others.

and going back to Chinese, i know someone who calls her cousins as brothers and sister, especially now under the one child rule, she can’t have any real brothers and sisters in the sense of the word

This still doesn’t answer my question.

 

[Darlene_Jason]

To quote Matthew 1:25 “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.” (He referring to Joseph.

 

[Darlene_Jason]

Matthew 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. The he refers to Joseph.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Mary being a perpetual virgin is confirmed in the scripture. There is a couple of scripture passages that say Jesus had brothers. But what some people don’t know is that the Hebrew word for brother is the same Hebrew used for cousin or nephew or relative. We see this term brother being used in Genesis where it says Abraham went to see his brother Lot. But we know that Lot was actually Abraham’s nephew. But because there is no Hebrew word for nephew it reads as brother. Some modern translations have inserted the word nephew there even though the original Hebrew is brother.

But the real kicker is when Jesus was dying on the cross he said to John, ‘this is your mother’, and speaking to Mary, he said, ‘this is your son’. If Jesus had brothers it would have been illegal for him to say that in his culture. His dying words would have been to insult his brothers if they existed. For it was law that the immediate family would look after the elderly parents. But it was because Jesus had no brothers that he told John to look after Mary. And scripture says that Mary went to live with John after this. So that should tell you right there Jesus never had any brothers.

There is another scripture passage that says Mary had no relations with her husband until Jesus was born. Some people think that gives them license to assume she had relations after Jesus was born. But that is not what that passage says. It is making reference to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. It does not specifically say what happens after Jesus was born. It’s kind of like me saying don’t kill anyone until I get back. Does that mean you should kill someone after I get back? Of course not. I am making reference to the point of time until I get back. But it will still be expected that once I get back the good behavior will continue.

 

[joplee]

Matthew 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. The he refers to Joseph.

Jesus also said “And behold, I am with you all until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20

This must mean that when the world ends, Jesus will no longer be with us. But that doesn’t make sense though does it? That is because at the end of the age we will be with him forever in heaven.

 

[boeck249]

This is a trick question. Anyone can become a sibling through the process of adoption. We become God’s adopted children through our baptism. We all call God our father and Mary our mother through our baptism. Not our biological parents but our spiritual parents. Remember The old testament is all about birth the new testament is about adoptions.

 

[Tomb54]

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?

It is pretty obvious that this person is talking about his actual family. Why would he bring up his father, mother, and then name his “brothers” but in fact mean friends?

So did Mary belong to a family that had 2 Mary’s in it or was this person really her cousin. It is not so obvious if you really understand the bible and how it was written and by whom. Cousin are not consider friends but are considered relatives and they way it was back then the family unit was much bigger than what it is consider today.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. (John 19)

 

[Tomb54]

Hello to you all. I basically have one question to the above statement. Who will you believe the teaching of the RCC or the teachings of God, the Bible.?

So the teachings of God did not start until about 400 AD? because that is when the Bible came into being by the Holy Spirit working within the Catholic Church. Why were Christians call Christians then before this time if there was no teaching of God? The only thing before this time was the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church and this Tradition with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is what brought the Bible into existence. It is also this same Tradition that says Mary was ever Virgin. If you belief the bible why can’t you believe in the same Tradition which also states Mary was ever Virgin?

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

Thank you for asking…!

I was brought up Catholic, but drifted from the faith post-college. I tried a local Unitarian church within the last six months and enjoy it quite a bit. One of their key tenets is a ‘free and responsible’ search for truth and God, which I like.

I have doubts regarding Jesus’s divinity. I don’t rule it out completely, but found that it was a distraction to me, trying to square the circle of the trinity. Specifically, I have doubts regarding the Holy Spirit and the infallibility of Church teaching and Bible authenticity; Papal authority (I’m cool with that Jesus was clear about Peter being the Rock, but I think that the line of succession after that is no more or less infallible than anything else). Third, if God expresses his grace to everyone, why does he need Jesus? And lastly, the commonality of hero myth/virgin births throughout other cultures gives me pause that Jesus must be the only full, accurate rendition of this story.

Having said that, I am open to the idea that Jesus is divine. But that belief simply makes mores sense to me when I think about the possibility of God expressing himself through other people/ things, without the preface that Jesus must be head and shoulders above the rest. It’s almost like an ‘if/then’ thing: if God wanted to explain himself to one people thru Jesus, why couldn’t he also use another guise to express himself to another people? I also confess an attraction to the possibility of deism; that God indeed created the Universe, but is not actively involved in it.

Yes, I realize some of those beliefs are inconsistent! Every good book I read seems to add two more to my reading list. I don’t pretend that I have solid answers, so I won’t try and convince people here that they are wrong. I love reading on the subject, and love vibrant discussions. I was in the middle of Ben Witherington Jr.‘s What Have They Done to Jesus, (a strong defense of the mainstream Christian belief re: Jesus) before I had to return it to the library. I may try C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity next.

 

[tml3625]

I haven’t read all the posts and replies but didn’t anyone read matthew 1:25? To "know’ someone in biblical terms is very clear. You all know what this means. To “know” a woman in biblical terms is to have sexual relations with that woman. I don’t understand why not having children is a virtue. Why is virginity a virtue? In closing, the bible is clear about this issue. Interpret “brothers” as kinsmen, cousins, or whatever conforms to your ideology. You cannot dispute Matt 1:25. Also, the bible is the christian authority, not the church, or it’s leaders.

 

[Major_Tom]

Oh btw…some would say its all conjecture to their eternal loss:sad_bye:

So noted!

The God I believe in isn’t going to banish me to hell because I acknowledge a lack of belief on a topic. I aspire to humbly try and explore, and answer that lack of belief.