Doesn't the Bible teach us that Jesus did have siblings??

[LilyM]

Really, all I am asking is why (if they were cousins and the people interpreting the word know they were) wasn’t the word just interpreted as ‘cousins’?

:banghead: The people WRITING and INTERPRETING about Lot and Abraham, Laban and Jacob, KNEW they weren’t brothers either. Scripture plainly shows they were uncle and nephew. Yet those writers and interpreters also WROTE the word ‘brother’ about them.

Why are you assuming in this case alone the word can’t possibly just mean ‘relative’ as it does in so many other places in Scripture where other words could also have been used???

It’s not like any of these people are mentioned as being sons or daughters of Mary - and a number of them are mentioned elsewhere as having OTHER mothers - or other fathers.

 

[Abraxsis]

Really, all I am asking is why (if they were cousins and the people interpreting the word know they were) wasn’t the word just interpreted as ‘cousins’?

Because whatever language it got translated into did not have a word for cousin and they used the closest thing.

Either that OR it meant a very close friend. Like the young people do today, “Yo thats my Bro.” that doesnt mean they are literaly blood bound brothers.

 

[Singinbeauty]

And WHO do you think could tolerate being a half-sibling of their own Lord and God??? You imagine trying to live with a brother who NEVER did anything wrong! Who could calm the seas and raise the dead? I dont’ think Joseph and Mary would inflict that on anyone!

Actually, to literally be the sibling of Christ would have been an IMMENSE privilage and blessing… Of course just to talk to Him face to face would have been enough. Can’t imagine the joy it would have been to grow up with Him!

And where were these other children while Joseph and Mary were searching for Jesus for three days in Jerusalem? Not a mention, not a peep. Why did Mary say ‘your father and I were sorrowing’, and not that his siblings missed him too? They surely would have, and it would’ve added to her argument.

Ummmm… maybe they weren’t born yet? It doesn’t mean that they showed up right away. Of course, does a parent (when they have found a missing child) really include the siblings when saying how much they were worried about the child? I don’t remember my dad ever saying anything about my brothers being worried about me when I walked off, only that HE and my mom were worried as he dragged me back to the family!

 

[Singinbeauty]

:banghead: The people WRITING and INTERPRETING about Lot and Abraham, Laban and Jacob, KNEW they weren’t brothers either. Scripture plainly shows they were uncle and nephew. Yet those writers and interpreters also WROTE the word ‘brother’ about them.

Why are you assuming in this case alone the word can’t possibly just mean ‘relative’??? It’s not like any of these people are mentioned as sons or daughters of Mary - the ones who are named are ALL mentioned elsewhere as having OTHER mothers.

First… calm down woman… It’s not a kidney.

Like I said, it makes no nevermind to me. I was just curious.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, to literally be the sibling of Christ would have been an IMMENSE privilage and blessing… Of course just to talk to Him face to face would have been enough. Can’t imagine the joy it would have been to grow up with Him!

Ummmm… maybe they weren’t born yet? It doesn’t mean that they showed up right away. Of course, does a parent (when they have found a missing child) really include the siblings when saying how much they were worried about the child? I don’t remember my dad ever saying anything about my brothers being worried about me when I walked off, only that HE and my mom were worried as he dragged me back to the family!

A 12 year gap??? And then a passel of other kids all of a sudden? Possible, but most unlikely. I’d go so far as to say that my mother, herself a mother of five as well as having been a doctor for 35 years, would never have seen such a case.

Besides which, you haven’t addressed the hundred and twenty-odd people present at Pentecost who were ALL (apart from the Apostles) described as Jesus’ ‘brothers’. Were these all his blood siblings too, then?

 

[LilyM]

First… calm down woman… It’s not a kidney.

Like I said, it makes no nevermind to me. I was just curious.

No, but it’s the same thing I had to say three times over before you finally understood my point.

 

[Singinbeauty]

No, but it’s the same thing I had to say three times over before you finally understood my point.

Still don’t think we see eye to eye…

And how is this the same as a kidney? Does my eternal soul rest on me believing that Christ had siblings or not?

 

[LilyM]

Still don’t think we see eye to eye…

And how is this the same as a kidney? Does my eternal soul rest on me believing that Christ had siblings or not?

Yes - for a very good reason.

The OT Ark of the Covenant, God’s dwelling, was not only made of purest gold but was sanctified by His presence so that it couldn’t be touched even. Uzzah died for touching it. Every place God appeared was rendered a holy place - the Burning Bush, Bethel and the Temple in Jerusalem.

If you’re saying Mary, Christ’s dwelling place (the Ark of the New Covenant as we call her) wasn’t equally pure and holy - and untouchable - then you’re saying Christ wasn’t almighty God who purifies and sanctifies the places where He dwells.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Yes - for a very good reason.

The OT Ark of the Covenant, God’s dwelling, was not only made of purest gold but was sanctified by His presence so that it couldn’t be touched even. Uzzah died for touching it. Every place God appeared was rendered a holy place - the Burning Bush, Bethel and the Temple in Jerusalem.

If you’re saying Mary, Christ’s dwelling place (the Ark of the New Covenant as we call her) wasn’t equally pure and holy - and untouchable - then you’re saying Christ wasn’t almighty God who purifies and sanctifies the places where He dwells.

That’s stretching it a bit and making sex between husband and wife dirty which it isn’t. Again, I say that it doesn’t matter to my belief system whether she did or didn’t have other children. I think that now, with so many years in between me and her, it is all just speculation and should all be put to bed to await an answer when we get to Heaven.

 

[jabelltulsa]

That’s stretching it a bit and making sex between husband and wife dirty which it isn’t. Again, I say that it doesn’t matter to my belief system whether she did or didn’t have other children. I think that now, with so many years in between me and her, it is all just speculation and should all be put to bed to await an answer when we get to Heaven.

You are being dismissive about the most important thing in the eternity, in my opinion.

I don’t mean disrespect, but it seems you don’t know enough about Sacred Scripture. I don’t think you’ve been encouraged to learn enough about the details of God and the Old and New Testament.

First off, virginity is always considered a pure state. Paul writes about it, the OT has 70 references to it, and the Prophesies in the OT qualify the Messiah as being born of a virgin. Why would Mary NEED to be a virgin to conceive Christ? That says something about the state of virginity. It is a state of being undefiled. She would remain a virgin, since she would ALWAYS be His mother. Joseph was a good Jewish man. He would not defile the Ark of the New Covenant (Christ being the New Covenant, the Ark being Mary - again, you have to see both the OT and the NT together).

Sex and conception is a direct result of original sin. Christ could not be born from original sin. The only conception that he would be born from would have been that of the Holy Spirit, and a mother free from that original sin.

Christ came to redeem us from sin, not to be subject to it. The Ark that carried Christ would have to be clean and pure as well.

On more thought … you said:

it is all just speculation and should all be put to bed to await an answer when we get to Heaven

know this … Christ left us His Church to teach us, and He promised to keep it free from error. What the Church says is not speculation, but rather the fullness of Truth. If the Church were to speculate, then It would say so (for instance, evolution, purgatory, etc.). If your current religion teaches you to just ‘await an answer’, then you need to come back to the True Church. The Church has been teaching about God for 2000 years (and has been ordered to do so by Christ Himself), and It has never ceased to encourage Its faithful to learn about the Truth.

I’m really glad you are here:thumbsup: !!!

 

[patrick457]

Simple. Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic, which like Hebrew did not have words for ‘cousin’ and used circumlocutions or the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ for convenience. When the Evangelists wrote the NT in Greek (not English) they did the same thing as the translators of the Septuagint did; translate every occurence of ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ literally even though Greek has a word for cousin. So they ‘transliterated’ instead of ‘translated’ every Jewish idiom in the Gospels.

Plus, Jesus was called ‘the Son of Mary’ not ‘a Son of Mary’, and when the brethren are mentioned, they aren’t called ‘the children of Mary’ but just ‘brethren of Jesus.’

(Continued Below)

 

[patrick457]

Plus, in John 7: 3-4 Jesus’ brethren advises Him to go to Judea and be famous. This would be fine if they were older than Jesus, but Jesus is called the Eldest son. Plus in Eastern Cultures (Jesus was not European or American after all) it was the eldest who gave advice to the youngest and not vice versa.

Plus as for the ‘until’; the definition you give is the modern meaning. Remember that anylanguage is an evolving language and many words that has a particular meaning now has a different one before. Take ‘nice’ for example. In Early Modern English ‘nice’ meant ‘stupid’, ‘suffer’ meant ‘to let’, ‘let’ meant ‘prevent’ etc.

As for the ‘until’, if you took it with the modern meaning in mind, you would get ridiculous results.

‘And Michal the daughter of Saul was without children TILL the day of her death.’ 2 Sam. 6: 23

Does that mean that Michal suddenly became pregnant AFTER she died?

 

[patrick457]

Another example. There is this song that has the lyrics:

Until the day I die
I bless the day that I was born for you

If we took the modern meaning of ‘until’, I guess the man singing it would stop to love the woman he sang this for if he died.

 

[Montalban]

It is stated in several verses of the Bible that Jesus has several brothers and does mention his sisters as well but does not go on to mention their names. It also says that Mary and Joseph did not have physical relations UNTIL after Jesus was born. There seems to be no reason to me why we shouldn’t take God’s word here literally as we do about the Eucharist. After all, the authors of Scripture could have use words that clearly meant cousin or other relative besides sibling. There is no good reason to assume that they didn’t mean brother or sister. After many verses of Scripture that clearly show the siblings of Jesus. And Mary and Joseph not having physical relations UNTIL after Jesus was born. Why would Roman Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life and Jesus did not have siblings?

When Jesus was dying on the Cross he commended his mother to the care of John.

If he had had other siblings then custom would have meant that she’d be cared for by them.

This would strongly suggest therefore that such siblings did not exist.

 

[LilyM]

That’s stretching it a bit and making sex between husband and wife dirty which it isn’t. Again, I say that it doesn’t matter to my belief system whether she did or didn’t have other children. I think that now, with so many years in between me and her, it is all just speculation and should all be put to bed to await an answer when we get to Heaven.

Firstly - a human being dying for touching the Ark doesn’t make touching things in an ordinary sense and an ordinary way dirty. Simply that the Ark was a unique and uniquely powerful and holy object so IT couldn’t be touched.

Similarly Mary wasn’t your ordinary woman or your ordinary wife, so Joseph couldn’t be your ordinary husband to her. SHE was in a unique position that made this so.

Remember a child had already been begotten upon her by God the Father and the Holy Spirit. In effect God Himself had claimed her as His spouse before she was married to Joseph. Somehow I don’t see God permitting Mary to be bigamous, do you?

The fact is Joseph was necessary as a protector and guardian for Mary and as foster-father for Jesus. Kinda preserving His anonymity a bit and making Him look more average. The only way to effectively achieve all of this was by playing the role of husband and father.

And again, as the bearer of Christ - God-made-flesh - she was the Ark of the New Covenant - unique and uniquely holy.

All of this taken together would pretty much put a nix on any claims Joseph might make to a marital embrace.

 

[Montalban]

Another example. There is this song that has the lyrics:

Until the day I die
I bless the day that I was born for you

If we took the modern meaning of ‘until’, I guess the man singing it would stop to love the woman he sang this for if he died.

Yeah, 'cause all those dead people singing was very annoying!

 

[Nella]

When Jesus was dying on the Cross he commended his mother to the care of John.

If he had had other siblings then custom would have meant that she’d be cared for by them.

This would strongly suggest therefore that such siblings did not exist.

not necessarily

 

[Spirithound]

Again, why would it be interpreted as ‘brothers’ if they knew that the word actually should have been ‘cousins’?

The word is translated as “brother”, even though it refers to cousins, because the word that is written is “delphoi” (in Greek characters). Every word of Scripture is important, and so it is important to maintain the exact translations, along with the traditions of how to interpret certain words and phrases.

It would seem odd that Jesus’ cousins would be with him and Mary and Joseph that often as opposed to his siblings.

Perhaps to your culture, but not to 1st century Palestinian Jews.
What do you mean “as opposed to his siblings”? He didn’t have siblings, therefore there is no one to be opposed to.

Really, all I am asking is why (if they were cousins and the people interpreting the word know they were) wasn’t the word just interpreted as ‘cousins’?

We do “interpret” the word as “cousins”, but the translations must be of what is written.

not necessarily

C’mon…I think you need to expand on that a bit more, provide some anthropological evidence, eh?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The problem with the way Protestants apologist interpret the so called “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, is that they want to interpret Scripture without looking into the culture of the time, the language, and what the Gospel writers intended for us to read it.

In fact, early Christians believed that Mary and Joseph only have one son. St. Jerome claims this, as well as others ECFs. Their views are not infallible but everyone then believed that Mary is pertual virgin.

Here are some few quotes I grab from Scripture Catholic:

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III

 

[Mannyfit75]

Continue from the previous:

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-V

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

The idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters is purely a modern Protestant belief and they have disregarded ancient Christian belief concerning about Jesus’ brothers and sisters who were really his cousins.

They also disregard the Pertual Virginity of Mary.