Did Jesus have sisters and brothers or step brothers/sisters?

[HarryStotle]

Or a verse where those purported to be brothers or sisters of Jesus turn out to have some other mother and father?

Try

 

[Ernie07]

Hi Rozellelily,

Mary was ever-virgin meaning she never had relations with a man during her life and bore no children besides Jesus. That is the truth because the Church says so. It is as simple as that, but I’ll explain why as this logic applies to not only this Mary topic, but any other topic where non-Catholics may try to persuade you that the Catholic belief is wrong.

First, Jesus said that He would build His Church and protect it from the gates of hell (MT 16:18). That means His Church can’t teach error for if it did and that error led someone to hell then certainly the gates of hell would have prevailed. Therefore, Jesus protects His Church from going down the wrong path. So who is that Church today?

Identifying who that Church is today can be extremely difficult due to the many denominations who believe different things yet who profess that they are teaching the truth. There can’t be multiple versions of the truth so who is right? It was much easier in the early Church (first 800-1000 years) as there was only one group that claimed to be the one apostolic and universal church. Yes, there were heretical groups that didn’t agree with a particular belief or two that the Church professed but none claimed to be that universal church. So we’re left with 2 options.

Either this early church who makes the claim to be the universal Church is Jesus’ Church and thus is protected from teaching error or Jesus failed to keep His promise to build His Church because no other group makes the universal claim. We know Jesus is God and can’t fail so therefore that single universal Church is His Church. And what did that Church believe?

What we find is that the Church believed in Mary ever-virgin, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, praying for the dead, a 73 book Bible, and other what we would today call Catholic Church beliefs. We know that the early Church believed these things because of church council documents. It’s there for anyone to see. And we know these beliefs to be true because Jesus said He would protect His Church from error.

I teach a session on this method of defending the faith and this is a very condensed version. If you disagree with anything I said or it’s not super clear please let me know and I’ll try to make it more clear. Hope this helps!

-Ernie-

 

[JonNC]

What we find is that the Church believed in Mary ever-virgin, yes

the Real Presence of the Eucharist, yes
infant baptism. **yes, and baptismal regeneration **praying for the dead, **yes. **
73 book Bible. **not always. Some more, some less
**.
other what we would today call Catholic Church beliefs. We know that the early Church believed these things because of church council documents. **yes, and scripture **

 

[Thom18]

“Brother” and “Sister” were used to describe cousins, or people in the same tribe as oneself (if I’m a Levite, all of the other Levites are my “brothers and sisters”).

If Jesus did have biological brothers and sisters, then Jesus probably wouldn’t have entrusted His mother to John’s care. One of His siblings would have taken her into their home.

 

[lilypadrees]

Depending on the parish,* it is taught that the other children Protestants take to be the actual brothers and sisters of Jesus were either Joseph’s children from a previous marriage and that Joseph was a widower or that these children were His cousins.

In our parish, we teach that they were cousins, the children of another Mary (Mary of Clophas/Cleophas) and her husband.

I say "depending on the parish, because I’ve been in different parishes in the same city that taught different things.

 

[Ernie07]

Hi Jon,

When you say the 73 book Bible was “not always…some more, some less” what do you mean?

I’m going on the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., Hippo in 393 A.D. and Pope Innocent ratifying those councils in Carthage in 419 A.D. as evidence of the early Church believing in a 73 book Bible. That and Jerome translating all 73 books as divinely inspired and included in the Vulgate (even though he personally believed in a 66 book bible) that served as the Bible of the Church for 1000 years as the reason for my contention that the universal Church believed in a 73 book Bible. The fact that there were some who disagreed with the Church (like Jerome) doesn’t take away at all from the Church’s decision.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

When you say the 73 book Bible was “not always…some more, some less” what do you mean?

I’m going on the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., Hippo in 393 A.D. and Pope Innocent ratifying those councils in Carthage in 419 A.D. as evidence of the early Church believing in a 73 book Bible. That and Jerome translating all 73 books as divinely inspired and included in the Vulgate (even though he personally believed in a 66 book bible) that served as the Bible of the Church for 1000 years as the reason for my contention that the universal Church believed in a 73 book Bible. The fact that there were some who disagreed with the Church (like Jerome) doesn’t take away at all from the Church’s decision.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

Long and often discussed here, but it is a fact that the EO have a larger canon, some of the ECFs had a smaller canon, and Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were not ecumenical councils binding on the whole Church. So, the 73 book canon has never been universal

 

[Ernie07]

Thanks Jon. Can you point to where this has been discussed so I can review? And sorry, but I don’t know what “EO” and “ECF” are referring to.

And although you correctly state that the councils I referred to were not ecumenical the key thing to note is that the ecumenical councils never questioned the validity of what those councils decreed. Why not? Are you saying that these regional councils have the potential of decreeing error even after the pope (Innocent in this case) validated their decrees? Any instances? I could be wrong, but I would be shocked if a council’s decrees, after a pope validated them, were later determined to be in error. But again, I could be wrong.

What other council refuted the canon as given by the councils I referred to? If none, why not? Who were these groups that believed in a 66 book bible and did they have the blessing of the Church in any formal manner? If not, doesn’t history prove that they were just an opposition group (not really any different than any other heretical group) rather than representing the beliefs of the Church since the 66 book bible is false?

Thanks for the discussion!

-Ernie-

 

[Cathoholic]

lilypadrees:

.

Depending on the parish,* it is taught that the other children Protestants take to be the actual brothers and sisters of Jesus were either Joseph’s children from a previous marriage and that Joseph was a widower or that these children were His cousins.

We just don’t know who these “brothers” of Jesus were.

The word for “brothers” in an ancient Hebrew culture was used TEN DIFFERENT WAYS!

But we DO know who these “brothers” of Jesus weren’t!

They were NOT uterine siblings to Jesus. That much we know for sure.

And that is enough to put to rest “the brothers objection” against Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity.

 

[FiveLinden]

Cathoholic:

Show me one verse that calls anyone in a biologic sense, the son of Mary other than Jesus. One verse.

Or if you want, show me one verse that calls ANY person in the Bible (other than Jesus, and in a biologic sense) a son or daughter of Mary.

One verse?

Matthew 12:46 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him ] While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.

Mark 3:31 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him ] Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him.

Mark 10:29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s,

Luke 8:19 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Come to Him ] Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd.

John 7:1 [ Jesus’ Brothers Disbelieve ] After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

 

[James817]

They were His older stepbrothers.

 

[FiveLinden]

They were His older stepbrothers

And where in the canon does it say this? It’s in a book specifically excluded.

 

[Gorgias]

James817:

They were His older stepbrothers

And where in the canon does it say this? It’s in a book specifically excluded.

Ahh, but excluded from the canon on what grounds? Are you saying that you know for a fact that it’s untrue?

 

[Gorgias]

And sorry, but I don’t know what “EO” and “ECF” are referring to.

“Eastern Orthodox”

“Early Church Fathers”

 

[FiveLinden]

Ahh, but excluded from the canon on what grounds? Are you saying that you know for a fact that it’s untrue?

No, I am not the one advancing the proposition that Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters. I do not have to prove the opposite, just observe that the weight of evidence is towards him having brothers and sisters. We know this as well as we know anything about him.

 

[mdgspencer]

The word “brothers” in the New Testament m is translated from a Greek word that can mean cousins as well as brothers. So the use of this word doesn’t prove that Mary had other children, Jesus’ brothers.
Of course, the New Testament was written in Greek, not in English.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I am not the one advancing the proposition that Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters. I do not have to prove the opposite, just observe that the weight of evidence is towards him having brothers and sisters.

Umm… “the weight of the evidence is towards him having brothers and sisters” =/= “the weight of the evidence is toward Jesus having biological brothers and sisters”. Just sayin’…

(In any case, you do have a document from ~150 A.D. – albeit non-canonical, which could simply mean that it was not included in the liturgical worship of the early Church – which claims that Joseph had sons prior to his marriage to Mary.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I asked fivelinden in post 14

Fivelinden:
.
Yes, according to the Bible. He (Jesus) had siblings.
.

Cathoholic:
.
Show me one verse that calls anyone in a biologic sense, the son of Mary other than Jesus. One verse.
.
Or if you want, show me one verse that describes ANY person in the Bible (other than Jesus, and in a biologic sense) as having Mary, the mother of Jesus, identified as their mother.
.
One verse?

.

fivelinden replied in post 31 . . . .

.

Matthew 12:46 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him ] While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.
.
Mark 3:31 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him ] Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him.
.
Mark 10:29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s,
.
Luke 8:19 [ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Come to Him ] Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd.
.
John 7:1 [ Jesus’ Brothers Disbelieve ] After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.
.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

You KNOW how a couple of posts later YOU asked another poster here on CAF . . .

And where in the canon does it say this?

.
So now I want to ask YOU . . . .

.
And where in the canon does it say this?

.

Where in the canon does it call anyone in a biologic sense, . . . the son of Mary? WHERE?

Or where in the canon cited (or ANYWHERE ELSE) does Scripture call ANY person in the Bible (other than Jesus, and in a biologic sense) a son or daughter of Mary?

.

I’m still waiting for an answer.

You are using verses that do NOT say what you are attempting to MAKE THEM say.

And I am not buying it.

So I’ll ask you again . . . .

And where in the canon does it say this?

 

[Cathoholic]

fivelinden used Acts 1:14 as a protect to fool you readers into thinking “brothers” in a Hebrew sense = uterine siblings.

In order to try to trick you fivelinden had to not post the first half of Acts 1:15 or it would discredit his (her?) own argument!

ACTS 1:14-15a 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty) . . . .

120 brothers or in this translation, “brethren”.

Wow!

It is either deceptive or overwhelmingly sloppy exegesis.

Which leads me to ask readers of this thread . . .

. . . Knowing this about fivelinden’s “unpacking” or exegesis of this verse (Acts 1:14) . . . WHY trust his exegesis on ANY of the above verses?

 

[Vonsalza]

The Catholic Church states that Jesus was an only child conceived by the Holy Spirit but there’s a bible verse that says:

C’mon Roze. This has been answered a million times in 2000 years. Moreover, for the first 1500 of these 2000 years, virtually no one in Christendom though Christ has other siblings via Mary.

Do your research. The answers are out there. Have been for longer than Protestantism has even existed.