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

[twf]

That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. In the Eastern tradition, both Catholic and Orthodox, it is believed that St Joseph was a widower who had older children. This tradition is not unknown in the West. There is a stain glass pane at my cathedral that depicts a very elderly St Joseph and a youger Sts Joachim and Anne with the Virgin and Child.

 

[FiveLinden]

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?

My reading of scriptures is straightforward and preferred by many scholars to your reading, which requires us to believe that the plain words are being used in a specialised sense in these passages, but not elsewhere in scripture. My main authority is the scholar Bart Ehrman who has written extensively on this. I understand that this does not accord with tradition, and if you choose, as a matter of faith, to accept tradition there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. But please recognise that what you are saying is a matter of faith, not the most likely (by far) historical fact.

 

[Cathoholic]

Fivelinden to Cathoholic (with emphasis mine):

. . . . if you choose, as a matter of faith, to accept tradition there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

Fivelinden:

My main authority is the scholar Bart Ehrman . . .

Well fivelinden, my reply to THAT is . . .

. . . . if you choose, as a matter of faith, to accept traditions of men including Bart Ehrman, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

.

For ANYBODY else . . . .

Where in the canon does it call ANYONE in a biologic sense, . . . the son or daughter of Mary?

OR . . .

Where in the canon cited is ANYONE described as having Mary for their mother (in a biologic sense)?

(Nowhere.)

 

[Cathoholic]

The Hebrew word “ach” (Aramaic = “Ah”), the Hebrew word for “brother” has a variety of meanings.

(And if the discussion morphs into “the Greek” that isn’t going to change this outlook either.)

ach = uterine brothers
ach = cousins
ach = second cousins
ach = third cousins
ach = distant relatives
ach = fellow tribesmen
Etc.
.

Ten Biblical Meanings of “Brother” (in addition to “Brother” in the sense of from the same womb in a Hebrew outlook)

• Half-brother
• Relative
• First cousin
• Second cousin
• Third cousin
• Companions
• Fellow Tribesmen
• Fellow Countrymen
• Nephew/Uncle
• Of the same religious affiliation

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, according to the Bible. He had siblings. No mention of step-anything.

There are three possible explanations of who Jesus’ “brethren” were. The three views are sometimes labeled as follows:

Epiphanian, the oldest of the three. According to this view, the “brethren” were Joseph’s children by his first wife. (Epiphanius was a fourth-century bishop of Salamis in Cyprus; I don’t know why the “Epiphanian view” bears his name, since it has been traced to a much earlier date.)

Hieronymian, an alternative explanation proposed by Jerome in about 380, possibly at the Council of Rome in 382, when he working in Rome as a secretary or adviser to Pope Damasus I. Jerome thought the “brethren” were Jesus’ cousins, the sons and daughters of Mary’s sister.

Helvidian.―This is the view you are defending, namely that James, Joses and the others were all the children of Joseph and Mary. Very little is known about Helvidius, apart from the one fact that he proposed this hypothesis when he was living in Rome at the same time as Jerome, though as far as anyone knows the two never met.

All three views find support among present-day NT specialists. Here’s a short article that appeared in First Things in 2007:

The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus - First Things

The project known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together is now in its thirteenth year, following its initial statement, “The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” with much-discussed statements on...

www.firstthings.com

 

[FiveLinden]

There are three possible explanations of who Jesus’ “brethren” were. The three views are sometimes labeled as follows:

Epiphanian, the oldest of the three. According to this view, the “brethren” were Joseph’s children by his first wife. (Epiphanius was a fourth-century bishop of Salamis in Cyprus; I don’t know why the “Epiphanian view” bears his name, since it has been traced to a much earlier date.)

Hieronymian, an alternative explanation proposed by Jerome in about 380, possibly at the Council of Rome in 382, when he working in Rome as a secretary or adviser to Pope Damasus I. Jerome thought the “brethren” were Jesus’ cousins, the sons and daughters of Mary’s sister.

Helvidian.―This is the view you are defending, namely that James, Joses and the others were all the children of Joseph and Mary. Very little is known about Helvidius, apart from the one fact that he proposed this hypothesis when he was living in Rome at the same time as Jerome, though as far as anyone knows the two never met.

Yes there are many possible explanations. But all these are not as straightforward as the plain meaning of the words. It is also entirely possible that these explanations were developed to support the belief that Mary remained a virgin. Since that belief is itself miraculous both in the becoming pregnant and the giving birth ends of the miracle, theories developed to account for it are also based on belief in a miracle which developed after the writing of the scriptures and therefore not as likely as the plain meaning of the words. There is for example, no indication that either the author of Mark or any of the authors of the Pauline writings had heard of the virgin birth.

 

[JonNC]

Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ’s brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives. In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan, whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some. But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ’s cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph. In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 214-15)

There is no evidence in scripture that Mary, the Blessed Virgin had other children. There is no statement that she had other children. There is no implication of other children when Jesus was at the temple at age 12, or at the foot of the cross. If Jesus had three brothers and "sisters ", the presence of numerous siblings would have had an impact on these two even, at least.
Nothing of the sort.

 

[FiveLinden]

There is no evidence in scripture that Mary, the Blessed Virgin had other children. There is no statement that she had other children. There is no implication of other children when Jesus was at the temple at age 12, or at the foot of the cross. If Jesus had three brothers and "sisters ", the presence of numerous siblings would have had an impact on these two even, at least.

Nothing of the sort.

Except that scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters and makes no comment about any parentage other than Mary, including in Mark, where he is specifically mentioned in the context of brothers as the ‘son of Mary’. There are lots of things Catholics believe that are not specifically said in scripture, for example that Jesus = ‘the Son of Man’. Do you disbelieve this on the same basis that you say you disbelieve that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

 

[Gorgias]

where he is specifically mentioned in the context of brothers as the ‘son of Mary’.

The context for Jesus is “son of Mary”. There is no assertion that the “brothers of Jesus” are “sons of Mary”.

 

[FiveLinden]

The context for Jesus is “son of Mary”. There is no assertion that the “brothers of Jesus” are “sons of Mary”.

And neither is there any clarification that they are not. If this issue was important to the writer, and your assumption true, it would have been made clear. It was not. The most likely explanation is that these were brothers and sisters of Jesus, born of Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

Fivelinden:

It is also entirely possible that these explanations were developed to support the belief that Mary remained a virgin.

Fivelinden. That is not a serious objection.

After all, uncle Abraham was conversing with nephew Lot in the Old Testament times. Uncle Abraham referred to Lot as his “brother”. (Obviously NOT “developed” by the Catholic Church).

Fivelinden.

Just a suggestion about the Bart Ehrman thing.

I would suggest studying with a more reliable theologian.

Dr. Brant Pitre does a critical review of Ehrman in his Catholic Epistles series (here).

Dr. Pitre was very critical of Ehrman and gave many good reasons why he should not be considered a trustworthy Biblical scholar.

Fivelinden:

There is for example, no indication that either the author of Mark or any of the authors of the Pauline writings had heard of the virgin birth.

Sure there is evidence. St. Paul studied at the feet of Rabbi Gamaliel.

St. Paul would have been able to recite Isaiah 7:14 in his sleep (despite there not being chapter and verse notation back then)

St. Paul points out Jesus was “made” or generated of a woman (Galatians 4:4-sometimes lightly translated as “born”) in the flesh, yet says Jesus is a descendent of David by BLOOD (Romans 1:3 yet a child of God according to the Spirit. St. Paul ASSUMES his readers at the Church at Rome know at least of Jesus’ Virginal Conception and has no need to defend it).

And St. Paul in Romans 5 hearkens us back to Genesis 3:15 with his teaching on Original Sin.

Genesis 3:15 In the Greek Old Testament discusses the “sperma” or “seed” of the WOMAN who is to come who will crush the head of the serpent.

“Sperma” is an odd term to use concerning “the Woman” . . . UNLESS . . . unless the Holy Spirit uses HER FLESH to give Jesus His body (this brings to mind a VIRGINAL conception right there).

From The Creed . . .

. . . For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. . . .

The only reason to explicitly mention it, is if it was being challenged to the people he is evangelizing. And even then, it may not be recorded in the Bible (like the Beloved Disciple who had vicious battles with Cerenthus, but these arguments were not explicitly recorded in Scripture either).

One of Cerinthus’ heresies?

DENYING the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

From Keating . . .

Irenaeus (d. 202), in his Against Heresies, recounts a story told by Polycarp (d. 156), who had studied under John. One day the apostle was in the public baths when Cerinthus entered. John stood up and told his companions, “Let us flee, lest the building fall upon us, for the enemy of truth, Cerinthus, is inside.” An ancient tradition holds that John wrote his first two epistles as a counter to the errors of Cerinthus.

Let Us Flee for the Enemy of Truth Is Inside

In the third book of his Ecclesiastical History (written around 325), Eusebius says that in the earliest days the Church “remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin...

www.catholic.com

 

[FiveLinden]

Oh dear…

 

[adgloriam]

@Rozellelily According to what I know, the Hebrews back then called each other “brothers” because they considered themselves all sons of Israel. So, I does not necessarily imply they were biological brothers.

 

[James817]

Why “oh dear?” (16 characters)

 

[BornInMarch]

Huh. I honestly have never seen this before.

Is this source from an actual Catholic Church (i.e. not a Sedevacantist Church or another Schismatic Church)?

 

[Francis]

Hi @
Ernie07 St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was obedient ,commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.

 

[BornInMarch]

According to this very website, the “Joseph was a widower” tradition and the “Joseph was a virgin” tradition are both acceptable for Catholics to believe. Take that for whatever it’s worth.

 

[Francis]

No it is approved by Five popes Mary of Agreda died on the 24th of May, 1665 A.D., on the Feast of Pentecost. Shortly afterwards, the process of the Ordinary was drawn up on the virtues and miracles in general of the fama sanctitatis. The petition for her canonization was offered November 21, 1671 A.D. Clement X introduced the cause on the 24th of August, 1672 A.D. The commission of introduction was signed January 28, 1673 A.D. The decree of non-culte was carried on June 27, 1674 A.D.

The apostolic process on the sanctity, the virtues and miracles in general was begun on September 2, 1679 A.D. The process was opened, the servant of God declared Venerable, and, in fine, on the 16th of December, 1689 A.D., a committee of consulters was named by Innocent XI for the examination of the works. In fine, Clement XIV declared that the book, The Mystical City, really was written by Mary of Agreda (Rome officially verified the fact).

As soon as the “City of God” appeared in print it was welcomed and extolled as a most wonderful work. The different translations found no less enthusiastic welcome in nearly all the European countries. It secured the immediate approbation and encomium of the ordinaries, the universities, the learned and eminent men of Christendom. There is probably no other book which was so closely scrutinized by those in authority, both civil and religious and afterwards so signally approved as the “City of God.” By order of Innocent XL, Alexander VIIL, Clement IX., Benedict XIIL, and Benedict XIV. it was repeatedly subjected to the closest scrutiny and declared authentic, worthy of devout perusal and free from error. The title “Venerabilis” was conferred upon the author. A large sized volume would be required to record the praises and commendations written in favor of the great “City of God.”

 

[thistle]

"Francis1d

The Mystical City of God Sister Mary Jesus Agreda was a 17th Century Spanish nun who received spiritual revelations about Mary and Jesus While not biblical, these revelations did receive the Imprimatur of The Church in 1949. An Imprimatur (from Latin, “let it be printed”) is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Catholics."

Imprimatur means let it be printed. It does not mean it is free from error in matters of doctrine and morals. It would also have to carry Nihil Obstat for that to be true.
In many cases books bearing only Imprimatur have not even been read by the Bishops whose name appears on the books.

Also private revelations do not have to be believed by Catholics and often even those “approved” are not accurate and “visionaries” may not interpret what they see/hear correctly. If anyone gets a spiritual lift from any private revelations that is good but they are not required reading and nobody should put them forward as “evidence/support” for an issue/argument.

Stick to actual Church teachings and what they are based on.

 

[JonNC]

Except that scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters and makes no comment about any parentage other than Mary, including in Mark, where he is specifically mentioned in the context of brothers as the ‘son of Mary’. There are lots of things Catholics believe that are not specifically said in scripture, for example that Jesus = ‘the Son of Man’. Do you disbelieve this on the same basis that you say you disbelieve that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

First, I’m not Catholic ( of the Roman kind). Scripture does not indicate that Mary had any other children. It does use words that, without further reference to Mary, probably refer to cousins.
If one accepts the view that the references to brothers and sisters mean children of The Blessed Virgin, then it seems there were significant numbers of them: 5 or 6 or perhaps more, yet no mention of them when Mary and Joseph return to the temple to find Jesus. Surely, in what must have been a panicked time, mention of the care of numerous children would have been made. Surely He would have been expected to help look after His young siblings, but no mention. And when they find Him, “why have you treated us so?”, nothing about His siblings.
But His actions at the foot of the cross clearly confirms that none of these men mentioned are His blood brothers.