F
Fuerza
Guest
It’s always good to find examples where Catholics and Orthodox can present a united front. Sometimes they can seem to be less common than they actually are.
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The Protestants are the minority in their beliefs that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters and that Mary remain a virgin. They held these ancient beliefs. Protestants belief are more modern and many of their interpretations are erroneous.It’s always good to find examples where Catholics and Orthodox can present a united front. Sometimes they can seem to be less common than they actually are.
N
Nevarlander
Guest
He’s just saying that the Chinese have a similar usage of “brother” for someone who is extremely close to you. In their case people would swear blood-brotherhood like the pagan Germans and Norse did (like the story of Odin and Loki). I don’t think the Semitic idea of cousins as “brothers” is quite the same thing, though.
J
Jesusstreet
Guest
We pray that GOD will not put us to the test. But this is the test. That is JESUS asked, “Who do you say that I am?” The answer to this question, was supposed by man, but it was Saint Peter who answered TRUE. JESUS then gave many blessings to Saint Peter, including the Keys to the KINGDOM. JESUS then asks another question here, “Who is my family?” . …
Of cousre in the first case we are given the answer, as Saint Peter is famously known for saying so, “You are CHRIST THE SON OF GOD!”
In the second case we are given the answer, “Those who do the will of THE FATHER!”
We are asked these same questions today. Who is JESUS CHRIST? Who are the family of JESUS CHRIST? The way we answer these questions is important. It seems to the former question there are as many answers as there are to the question, “Who do you say GOD is?” . . . it is when we see that JESUS IS GOD that we answer TRUE. In the second question, many will say, “Oh, JESUS had brothers, look here the Scripture says so,” but in fact JESUS is asking a question here, one of perception, for who is the “family of JESUS?” . … When you answer this TRUE, you will see MOTHER MARY has many children, and JESUS many brothers, all of us having a FATHER in GOD OUR FATHER.
Blessed are those to whom flesh and blood has not revealed this but GOD OUR FATHER. For those who do not know, it is wisdom to not assume but ask for proper instruction in teh word. You’ll see this by example in the book of acts, of an educated man admitting he didn’t know the meaning of the Bible, but asked for instruction. Those who have been wrongly taught, need to humble themselves, and be retaught.
Of cousre in the first case we are given the answer, as Saint Peter is famously known for saying so, “You are CHRIST THE SON OF GOD!”
In the second case we are given the answer, “Those who do the will of THE FATHER!”
We are asked these same questions today. Who is JESUS CHRIST? Who are the family of JESUS CHRIST? The way we answer these questions is important. It seems to the former question there are as many answers as there are to the question, “Who do you say GOD is?” . . . it is when we see that JESUS IS GOD that we answer TRUE. In the second question, many will say, “Oh, JESUS had brothers, look here the Scripture says so,” but in fact JESUS is asking a question here, one of perception, for who is the “family of JESUS?” . … When you answer this TRUE, you will see MOTHER MARY has many children, and JESUS many brothers, all of us having a FATHER in GOD OUR FATHER.
Blessed are those to whom flesh and blood has not revealed this but GOD OUR FATHER. For those who do not know, it is wisdom to not assume but ask for proper instruction in teh word. You’ll see this by example in the book of acts, of an educated man admitting he didn’t know the meaning of the Bible, but asked for instruction. Those who have been wrongly taught, need to humble themselves, and be retaught.
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
No, Nella, they SAID what WORD they had for a relative. It is an historical fact. You may not like that, but it is. Here in California, our ancestors from Espana and Mexico used the word for ‘cousin’ when addressing peers (of the same class, la gente de razon)my point exactly. They said what they meant. If we can say that they said brother but really meant cousin without a single shread of proof that this is what they actually meant, then we can go ahead and make the assumption that when Jesus said this is my body, he may actually have meant this means my body. God’s word is God’s word. You can’t take some of it at face value and determine another value for other parts, sorry.
The Elizabethans (as witnessed by the plays and poems of that time as well as the diaries and legal documents) used ‘cousin’ loosely, too.
As to why it was translated as “brother” instead of “cousin” or “step-relations”? Well, Latin has loose (and strict for male inheritance customs) catch-all terms for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ too.
Besides, it was UNDERSTOOD to mean cousins or older step siblings.
Taking it in a literalist reading would screw up a lot of words and phrases in Scripture. For example, calling John the “beloved disciple.” Hhmmmm, idle minds, idle minds…
Robert
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Well, He DID mean that or He wouldn’t have repeated it 3 times (in St John) or it wouldn’t have concerned St Paul so much in his letters.my point exactly. They said what they meant. If we can say that they said brother but really meant cousin without a single shread of proof that this is what they actually meant, **then we can go ahead and make the assumption that when Jesus said this is my body, he may actually have meant this means my body. ** God’s word is God’s word. You can’t take some of it at face value and determine another value for other parts, sorry.
Using your example, would Jesus be LITERALLY a door? or a light? The Bible is full of metaphor, simile, hyperbole, hendiadys, parallelism and scores of what-not figures of speech and images.
Remember what the Hebrew/Aramaic “covered his feet” really means? It’s idiomatic. We have to remember the culture and its customs.
Robert
L
Little_Mary
Guest
Nella,
‘Back in the day’ it was the custom for the family (wife, children, mother, etc) of a dead man to go live with the deceased’s eldest male relative.
When Jesus died on the cross, he gave his mother to John. If he had actual brothers, this gesture would have been a HUGE slap in the face to them.
Also, when the bible was translated, there was not a word for cousin, aunt, uncle, kin, whatever. The only word to use and remain as close to the translation as possible was brother.
You asked ‘why didn;t they change it to cousin as soon as they could?’
Who knows?
Maybe they wanted to stick close to the original translation.
‘Back in the day’ it was the custom for the family (wife, children, mother, etc) of a dead man to go live with the deceased’s eldest male relative.
When Jesus died on the cross, he gave his mother to John. If he had actual brothers, this gesture would have been a HUGE slap in the face to them.
Also, when the bible was translated, there was not a word for cousin, aunt, uncle, kin, whatever. The only word to use and remain as close to the translation as possible was brother.
You asked ‘why didn;t they change it to cousin as soon as they could?’
Who knows?
Maybe they wanted to stick close to the original translation.
L
LilyM
Guest
You know what? Let’s imagine Jesus had taken ANY of those metaphors to the extremes he did in John 6 …
imagine he says ‘I am a door … I am a door … I am a door … my body is real wood and my hands are real handles … unless someone knocks on this door and enters through it they will not have life within them … you MUST knock on this door to enter eternal life … this door is my body which I will give for the life of the world …’
and then he LETS PEOPLE WALK AWAY because they think he’s crazy to say such a thing? And even the Apostles threaten to walk away and he doesn’t explain to them that it’s a mere metaphor, unlike most every other metaphor He uses?
Instead He says ‘are you going to leave too?’ The man is prepared to have NO followers at all as a result of His saying, so firmly convinced is He that He speaks literal truth.
The man is the Son of God - he can calm the waves and raise the dead but He can’t be a door if He wants? You know what, I’d believe He literally was a door if He spoke so adamantly about it - at least AFTER the Resurrection
It’d be more than my soul was worth not to - since my salvation may depend upon it!And it’s called a ‘hard teaching’ - what on earth is hard about believing that He was using bread and wine, as symbols? Nothing. He used many others. The hard thing is to believe that He was speaking LITERAL truth.
N
Nella
Guest
I understand what you are saying but too many times, scripture speaks of Jesus’ brothers and sisters with him along with Mary and Joseph. Wouldn’t it be very odd that his cousins spent that much time with their aunt and uncle instead of their own parents??Nella,
‘Back in the day’ it was the custom for the family (wife, children, mother, etc) of a dead man to go live with the deceased’s eldest male relative.
When Jesus died on the cross, he gave his mother to John. If he had actual brothers, this gesture would have been a HUGE slap in the face to them.
Also, when the bible was translated, there was not a word for cousin, aunt, uncle, kin, whatever. The only word to use and remain as close to the translation as possible was brother.
You asked ‘why didn;t they change it to cousin as soon as they could?’
Who knows?
S
Sabda
Guest
Think about this. If an angel of God came to you and said you were going to have the Son of God what would you do? Would you, after having the Son of God, go and have other children? And as such, end up having to split your time up between all these children. Or would you, instead, devote your entire life to raising and caring for the Son of God and forgo the gift of having other children? There by devoting your whole life to the care and raising of God’s Son.
I think one thing that has been forgotten is that children are a gift from God. As with all gifts, some of us well receive this gift and some of us will not. After all doesn’t Scripture state that we do not all receive the same gifts? Some will have children and some won’t. Also as Scripture states some will be made eunuchs by man, some are born eunuchs, some make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God. Mary and Joseph gave up the gift of having earthly children for the sake of the gift of the heavenly Child.
St Paul pegs this down really well in 1 Cor 7:
Those who have an earthly marriage do well, but those who forgo the earthly marriage for the sake of the heavenly marriage do better. In the case of Mary and Joseph, they did better than the rest of us.
Another chapter to think about is Numbers 30.
S
Sabda
Guest
No, I have a nephew that spends more time at his friends house with his friends family than he does with his own. Not because there are problems but simply because he likes going over there. His mom often jokes with him that he needs to thank his “mom” for allowing him to spend time with them (his own parents). Of course my nephew is 18 yr.
When I was growing up I would often spend a lot of time with my friends families. Not because I did not like my own family but simple because I enjoyed being with those friends. In doing so I learned many things from them that I would other wise not have learned.
In big extended families in other parts of the world children often go back and forth from each others houses. The children are looked after as a group. Which ever mom is available will watch all the kids while the other moms are busy. This is called raising your child in the village.
N
Nella
Guest
I can’t subscribe to this belief. Why? Well, because it is simply not Biblical. Nowhere in scripture does it say or even suggest that Mary and Joseph didn’t do on to have a normal physical marriage. I am not mocking your belief here, I am simply saying that Scripture even goes on to say that they didn’t have a physical relationship UNTIL after Jesus was born. Your belief is not supported an ounce in the Bible but yet to believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters is. I think that you have to work far more to make an argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary than you do to just read scripture for what it says.
P
Peregrino
Guest
I think it is quite clear and obvious that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters. How many times do we see this written in scripture? “his brothers and sisters” or “James, brother of the Lord”, etc. How is Mary devalued if she had other children? I don’t get it.
N
Nella
Guest
I absolutely agree. Sex in marriage is NOT a sin. Why would Mary and Joseph for that matter feel that they couldn’t have more children, especially given the normal size of many families in those days?
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Lily, I hope you are agreeing with me.The man is the Son of God - he can calm the waves and raise the dead but He can’t be a door if He wants? You know what, I’d believe He literally was a door if He spoke so adamantly about it - at least AFTER the Resurrection
And it’s called a ‘hard teaching’ - what on earth is hard about believing that He was using bread and wine, as symbols? Nothing. He used many others. The hard thing is to believe that He was speaking LITERAL truth.
I was pointing out to Nella the inconsistency in her taking ONE example from Scripture in a literalist manner: Jesus having blood ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters.’
I was not asserting metaphoric interpretation of the Eucharist or anything else.
Robert
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
Most Protestants will argue there is no warrant for believing they were cousins (not linguistic warrant, contextual warrant, etc). Catholics and Orthodox will say there most certainly is. Bishop (ret) John Shelby Spong will add that the birth narratives are Midrash and not actual history since from his point of view they are only in two Gospels and contradictory between the two Gospels - wisemen…none mentioned…star…no star…shepherds…no shepherds…return home unventfully…goes into exile in Egypt). On top of that Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth so for Bishop Spong this is Midrash (pious legend) meant to teach something spectacular about a spectacular person.
In other words you are not going to study this issue and come up with a slam dunk answer any more than Calvinists and Arminians who have been arguing for centuries and backing their claims up or in house disputes between Thomists and Monists.
What you can do is to study the issue and come to point where you can usccessfully argue the churches point on the topic (with charity).
Rev North
In other words you are not going to study this issue and come up with a slam dunk answer any more than Calvinists and Arminians who have been arguing for centuries and backing their claims up or in house disputes between Thomists and Monists.
What you can do is to study the issue and come to point where you can usccessfully argue the churches point on the topic (with charity).
Rev North
S
Spirithound
Guest
What, 4 or 5 times over the course of 3 years? Particularly if they lived close together, I wouldn’t say that’s an unnatural amount of time.
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Peregrino,
Mary would NEVER be “devalued if she had other children.”
However, the Church has always taught (I assume you are Catholic as per the Greek flourish in your profile) that Jesus had step siblings OLDER than he and that one of them, James, was the bishop of Jerusalem after His death and resurrection.
Remember, there were many other books and letters and ‘gospels’ making the rounds in the early decades of the Church. Not one of them describes blood siblings of Jesus with Mary and Joseph as the natural parents.
Not being in Scripture does not equate with devaluation or unimportance. Don’t argue from silence.
Robert
P
patrick457
Guest
The first guy to argue that Jesus had siblings was Helvidius. He caused controversy since it was believed widely that Jesus’ brethren were Joseph’s children (through a former marriage) but not Mary’s. This was in the year 380.
St. Jerome (A scholar and the author of the Vulgate) heard of the controversy and initially ignored it, saying Helvidius’ idea was ‘novel, wicked and affront to the faith of the whole world.’ Eventually convinced by his friends, he wrote a treatise defending Mary’s virginity using Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers, (newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm) ‘On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary’, where he gave the ‘cousin’ explanation. Helvidius could not come up with a reply and the controversy died out until recently.
St. Jerome (A scholar and the author of the Vulgate) heard of the controversy and initially ignored it, saying Helvidius’ idea was ‘novel, wicked and affront to the faith of the whole world.’ Eventually convinced by his friends, he wrote a treatise defending Mary’s virginity using Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers, (newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm) ‘On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary’, where he gave the ‘cousin’ explanation. Helvidius could not come up with a reply and the controversy died out until recently.
N
Nella
Guest
A good example of what can happen when we get away from using the plumbline of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in that order.
- Status