Did Jesus have siblings?

[comfort1st]

μη γενετο! (for those who don’t know koine Greek, that’s an expression used by Paul, and equivalent to “God forbid!” - no blasphemy)

Please let’s address the question with respect.

First, resorting to church ‘tradition’ (I note the appropriateness of using a lower case ‘t’ rather than upper case) instead of scripture does nothing for your argument. If it’s traditional for a priest to touch a metal plate on the wall before administering communion (so he discharges his static electricity) does that mean it’s scriptural? Of course not. The Bible does NOT tell us to take everything the church may say as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That’s the church trying to control people. Neither does listing people whose statements were based on one interpretation (as done by MiaCulpa). When someone asks where in scripture something is written please quote scripture, not theologians or church leaders from centuries later.

References to the LXX in arguing about the use of a word in the Hebrew Scriptures, translated as ‘brothers’ in English are not valid. A particular verse in the gospels was given to a professional interpreter to translate into Russian, and the subsequent Russian was given to another professional interpreter to put into English. What started as “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” finished as “the vodka’s OK but the meat’s a bit off.” Please be very wary of using translations of translations. If you want to quote the Hebrew Scriptures please go back to the Masoretic text.

When Christ’s mother, brothers and sisters were mentioned in Mt 13:55, and when they were mentioned in Mt 12:46-7 it is very clear that the reference is to siblings, not cousins, or anyone else. Indeed, in Mt 12:48 Jesus makes that very point. The people were telling Him that His siblings were there but He was saying that His true brothers are those who do God’s will.

As I said in an earlier post, the people at the time would not have even considered the possibility that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit so any suggestion that there would have been repercussions for Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus is totally null and void.

Also, please don’t tell those who have a different opinion that they are living a lie. That’s very arrogant. No-one has all the truth, and no-one has only truth. There were no cameras, tape recorders or dictaphones in the time of Christ so we will never be sure what was actually said or how many siblings He had. What we do know is that the writer of Matthew’s gospel referred to Him having brothers and sisters, and the claim that they were actual siblings is quite valid, though neither proved nor disproved.

There were also plenty of people with similar names to those quoted as siblings of Jesus, so it’s not necessarily the case that the people mentioned were also His siblings.

 

[Poco]

μη γενετο! (for those who don’t know koine Greek, that’s an expression used by Paul, and equivalent to “God forbid!” - no blasphemy)

References to the LXX in arguing about the use of a word in the Hebrew Scriptures, translated as ‘brothers’ in English are not valid.

Would you be so kind as to tell us what that word is? Also, do you happen to have the Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of that word?

 

[NHInsider]

“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.

I like Wikipedia when I need a quick introduction to a subject I’m not familiar with, or as a quickie way to chase down other sources. For New Testament background I don’t need wikipedia: I earned my theology degree the old-fashioned way.

“Q” theory was accepted by almost everyone, including myself, thirty years ago. It is much more in doubt today, even among scholars. There are, of course, people who are reluctant to give up what they have “known” for so long - and countless scholarly texts, both freshly-minted and left over in libraries (like mine), to re-state the now-questioned “facts.”

But aside from that, I didn’t say Matthew was written in Hebrew, which it almost certainly was not, or by an eyewitness, which it may or may not have been. I said it was written for a Jewish-Christian community (as opposed to a Greek/Gentile community, which was your assertion). “Most scholars today” – or thirty years ago – would confirm that.

 

[Poco]

I apologize if I sounded rude. My understanding is many of those languages used the same word for brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle etc.

 

[NHInsider]

OK, so his argument is based on nothing.

As was your question, apparently.

 

[NHInsider]

μη γενετο! (for those who don’t know koine Greek, that’s an expression used by Paul, and equivalent to “God forbid!” - no blasphemy)

Please let’s address the question with respect.

An admirable proposition.

When someone asks where in scripture something is written please quote scripture, not theologians or church leaders from centuries later.

Why should we accept this as a condition when we deny the proposition that Scripture is the only acceptable source of Truth?

Please be very wary of using translations of translations. If you want to quote the Hebrew Scriptures please go back to the Masoretic text.

Why? Jesus and the Apostles did not use the Masoretic text.

When Christ’s mother, brothers and sisters were mentioned in Mt 13:55, and when they were mentioned in Mt 12:46-7 it is very clear that the reference is to siblings, not cousins, or anyone else.

No, that is NOT “very clear.” If it were as you say, we would not be having this discussion. In fact, if it were, the Church that preserved and proclaimed those precise verses would not have believed and taught for more than 16 centuries that He had no siblings.

Indeed, in Mt 12:48 Jesus makes that very point. The people were telling Him that His siblings were there but He was saying that His true brothers are those who do God’s will.

He does clearly state that doing the will of God is what makes one a part of God’s family. He does not say that those guys outside are children of His mother. (In fact, He doesn’t even acknowledge HER as His mother in this passage.)

 

[comfort1st]

Would you be so kind as to tell us what that word is? Also, do you happen to have the Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of that word?

The point I was making, Poco, was that it is not valid to use the Greek translation of the Masoretic text to support a proposal that Christ had no brothers. If we want to quote Hebrew Scriptures to support our argument we should quote the Hebrew text, not a translation of it.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

No siblings (Jesus has a well-known cousin):

Ex Cathedra:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

ever Virgin Mary (not Mary) assumed into heaven.

Excerpt:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
2. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
3. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.
4. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

---

This Ex Cathedra teaching supercedes all previous and future fallible teaching on the subject.

 

[MrZetterlund]

I wish I were Jesus’ sibling.

 

[comfort1st]

Why should we accept this as a condition when we deny the proposition that Scripture is the only acceptable source of Truth?

First: we were asked why scripture apparently tells us He had siblings but the Roman church (but not all others) teaches that He didn’t. Second: I’d trust scripture over the church any day. Human run the churches.

Why? Jesus and the Apostles did not use the Masoretic text.

If you want to quote Hebrew Scriptures you should quote the Hebrew Scriptures, not a translation of them. Jesus would have been familiar with the interpretation of those scriptures, and so would the writer of the gospel.

No, that is NOT “very clear.” If it were as you say, we would not be having this discussion. In fact, if it were, the Church that preserved and proclaimed those precise verses would not have believed and taught for more than 16 centuries that He had no siblings.

It was very clear to the Jesuits with whom I did post-grad study, and any examination of the context, and the contrast Jesus made between those whom the crowd described as His brothers and those whom He considered His brothers should make it clear that the word for brothers is being used firstly as siblings and then as those of like mind. The Roman church has also taught, for many centuries, that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, and there’s no reference to that in scripture. As humans we get things wrong, so we should ask scripture for answers, and not just take what the church teaches as gospel.

He does clearly state that doing the will of God is what makes one a part of God’s family.

and in contrasting what the others were saying with what He was saying Jesus gives as strong an implication as possible without actually saying it, that those described by the crowd as His brothers were, in fact, siblings.

The reality is that scripture does not tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That was an early church construct which has been taught, without proper examination, for centuries. The line of reasoning that says she would have been stoned to death for having a sexual relationship with another man whilst her first husband (God/Holy Spirit) was alive is not valid because it would never have been thought of, let alone accepted, in Christ’s lifetime. Please remember also that the church refused for 400 years to apologise to Galileo because of action it took in response to his claim that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. We get things wrong. Some of us take a lot longer to accept that we have been wrong. Sometimes that’s because we think our faith will fall in a heap if some things we’ve been taught for years is actually not valid.

 

[comfort1st]

Why should we accept this as a condition when we deny the proposition that Scripture is the only acceptable source of Truth?

First: we were asked why scripture apparently tells us He had siblings but the Roman church (but not all others) teaches that He didn’t. Second: I’d trust scripture over the church any day. Human run the churches.

Why? Jesus and the Apostles did not use the Masoretic text.

If you want to quote Hebrew Scriptures you should quote the Hebrew Scriptures, not a translation of them. Jesus would have been familiar with the interpretation of those scriptures, and so would the writer of the gospel.

No, that is NOT “very clear.” If it were as you say, we would not be having this discussion. In fact, if it were, the Church that preserved and proclaimed those precise verses would not have believed and taught for more than 16 centuries that He had no siblings.

It was very clear to the Jesuits with whom I did post-grad study, and any examination of the context, and the contrast Jesus made between those whom the crowd described as His brothers and those whom He considered His brothers should make it clear that the word for brothers is being used firstly as siblings and then as those of like mind. The Roman church has also taught, for many centuries, that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, and there’s no reference to that in scripture. As humans we get things wrong, so we should ask scripture for answers, and not just take what the church teaches as gospel.

He does clearly state that doing the will of God is what makes one a part of God’s family.

and in contrasting what the others were saying with what He was saying Jesus gives as strong an implication as possible without actually saying it, that those described by the crowd as His brothers were, in fact, siblings.

The reality is that scripture does not tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That was an early church construct which has been taught, without proper examination, for centuries. The line of reasoning that says she would have been stoned to death for having a sexual relationship with another man whilst her first husband (God/Holy Spirit) was alive is not valid because it would never have been thought of, let alone accepted, in Christ’s lifetime. Please remember also that the church refused for 400 years to apologise to Galileo because of action it took in response to his claim that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. We get things wrong. Some of us take a lot longer to accept that we have been wrong. Sometimes that’s because we think our faith will fall in a heap if some things we’ve been taught for years is actually not valid.

 

[comfort1st]

Sorry for the double-up. My system told me I was logged out and the first posting had not been successful.

 

[comfort1st]

Ex Cathedra:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

1. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

This Ex Cathedra teaching supercedes all previous and future fallible teaching on the subject.

Of course this is fallible teaching. It must be, or whoever wrote this is claiming to have the only valid response on the issue contained in the statement, and declaring that even thinking otherwise will bring on the wrath of God. How dictatorial and it’s denigrating to those millions of Christians who spend their lives studying scripture. Did Jesus take this approach? I think not! Being sixty years on I’d say it’s more than about time this approach was abandoned.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Of course this is fallible teaching. It must be, or whoever wrote this is claiming to have the only valid response on the issue contained in the statement, and declaring that even thinking otherwise will bring on the wrath of God. How dictatorial and it’s denigrating to those millions of Christians who spend their lives studying scripture. Did Jesus take this approach? I think not! Being sixty years on I’d say it’s more than about time this approach was abandoned.

Of course it is infallible teaching. It is what it is. People don’t have to like it. It isn’t up for vote. It isn’t “collective wisdom”. It doesn’t matter how many people study scripture or language. Jesus did what He did.

 

[kepha1]

Originally Posted by Pawel_J forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

*Luke1:43 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” *
Protestant Response: “Mother of God, what, are you kidding me?”

*Angel Gabriel says - Luke1:28 “…Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!” *
Protestants say - “What? She’s just another sinful women.”

Elizabeth says - Luke1:42 “…Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” Catholics say - “Hail, Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus…”
**Protestants say - **, What? I’ll never “worship” Mary by repeating that prayer.

"Jesus says" - John19:26 “Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” *
Protestants say* - What? Get her out of my house! You aren’t going to find her in my home.

Rev.12:17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war ON THE REST OF HER OFFSPRING, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea…”
Protestants say, That’s Isreal… that’s the Church… thats anything but Mary, she is not MY mother!”

Well, she is Our Mom. How would you like it if I called your mother a bigamist? I have a lot of respect for the many holy Protestants I have met in my lifetime, but I cannot respect such gross theological errors as this.
**
Jesus having bilogical brothers is a doctrine of demons. It leads to Christological errors and is a lie from the pit of hell. My position stands.

 

[HappyHazel]

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?

When I read that I was sure he had at least one brother named James. Having time off before I return to school I have been surfing the web this is what I found;

BOOK OF JAMES, OR PROTEVANGELIUM
From “The Apocryphal New Testament”
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

Origen mentions the Book of James (and the Gospel of Peter) as stating that the ’ brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the first mention of it, and shows us that the book is as old as the second century. To collect later references to it is unnecessary.
It is generally agreed that the story of the death of Zacharias (chs. xxii-xxiv) does not properly belong to the text. Origen and other early writers give a different account of the cause of I~is death: it was, they say, because, after the Nativity, he still allowed Mary to take her place among the virgins in the Temple.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html
Not all the links work, so I am going to do a name search on Origen and the Book of James.

One last thing in my “dictionary of the bible,” Mary is believed to not have had any other children than the Christ according to John 19: 25 -27
So she is our Virgin Mary…cool, learned something this week.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Also, please don’t tell those who have a different opinion that they are living a lie. That’s very arrogant. No-one has all the truth, and no-one has only truth. There were no cameras, tape recorders or dictaphones in the time of Christ so we will never be sure what was actually said or how many siblings He had. What we do know is that the writer of Matthew’s gospel referred to Him having brothers and sisters, and the claim that they were actual siblings is quite valid, though neither proved nor disproved.

I’d trust scripture over the church any day. Human run the churches.

It’s interesting that you place more value on scripture than on the teachings of the Church when scripture came from the Church. As I said earlier, the bible wasn’t handed down to somebody on a mountain top or brought down from heaven by an angel. It was assembled by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century and PRIOR to it being canonized, the Church already held the tradition that Mary remained ever virgin.

If the Church held incorrect beliefs prior to finalizing the bible and, as was already explained, the Church used it beliefs to determine the contents of the bible, how can we be certain of the correctiveness of the bible? Nothing can be more correct than the source from which it came.

Secondly, scripture itself says that the Church is the defender of the truth and the fountain of truth from which no falsehood can come. If you disbelieve the Church, then you are at the same time disbelieving scripture and if you disbelieve scripture on this point, why believe it on any other point?

 

[Sir_Knight]

No siblings (Jesus has a well-known cousin):

Ex Cathedra:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

ever Virgin Mary (not Mary) assumed into heaven.

Excerpt:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
2. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
3. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.
4. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

---

This Ex Cathedra teaching supercedes all previous and future fallible teaching on the subject.

Thank you for posting this …by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory

… that pretty much settles the matter for Catholics …Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

This goes hand-in-hand with what I said earlier …But by failing to believe official Church teaching that Mary was ever Virgin as taught in CCC499-500 …

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

… one is considered a heretic as defined by Church Canon 751 …Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
… and is AUTOMATICLY excommunicated from the Catholic Church as declared in Canon 1364 §1 …“an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
… The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does NOT require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.
​

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course this is fallible teaching. It must be, or whoever wrote this is claiming to have the only valid response on the issue contained in the statement, and declaring that even thinking otherwise will bring on the wrath of God. How dictatorial and it’s denigrating to those millions of Christians who spend their lives studying scripture. Did Jesus take this approach? I think not! Being sixty years on I’d say it’s more than about time this approach was abandoned.

“This approach” has been enforce since the very beginning of the Church and scripture, which you put so much stock into (even above the authority of the Church, it seems), gives the Church the authority to ex-spell non-believers from it’s ranks and commands believers to have nothing to do with unbelievers.

Why should these biblical teachings be abandoned? What other parts of scripture should be abandon?

EDITED TO ADD: That Jesus DID take this approach. He commanded us to brings matters to the Church and those who do not listen to the Church, should be shun

 

[Sir_Knight]

Oops. Double tap. Sorry about that. Connection must have froze up.