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

[Sabda]

Nella;2576087
I can’t subscribe to this belief. Why? Well, because it is simply not Biblical.

I study Scripture like you do. Yet I came to a different opinion, and my opinion on Scripture does not agree with yours.

Nowhere in scripture does it say or even suggest that Mary and Joseph didn’t do on to have a normal physical marriage.

WHAT??? Think about this, seriously. What in the world was actually NORMAL about their marriage to being with? Mary get’s pregnant without the help of man. What’s normal about that?

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.

Once again that is your opinion and I study the Bible just like you and my opinion does not agree.

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.

As stated above that is your opinion and my opinion differs.

You need to be very careful in telling someone that their opinion is not Biblical. Everyone can read the Bible but not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion. That does not make their conclusion unbiblical.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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.

1. And NOWHERE in Scripture does it say or even suggest that Mary and Joseph DID go on to have a normal physical marriage?!
2. What about these passages in Scripture?

a. Genesis 14:16 and 29:15
b. Leviticus 10:4

All of them use the Septuagint word ‘adelphos’ or ‘adelphoi,’ yet they have been variously translated (I have a TaNaKh, the KJV, and 3 other Catholic Bibles) as ‘kinsman,’ ‘kinsmen,’ ‘brother,’ ‘cousin’ and ‘sons.’

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

A good example of what can happen when we get away from using the plumbline of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in that order.

Nella;

Sounds like you agree with us???

Robert

 

[RevDrNorth]

In the end other than affecting the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual virginity does it having anything to do with salvation. No…does not have any impact on salvation whatsoever.

For that reason perpetual virginity is to many compeletly irrelevant and to the biblical writers of no importance to mention)?
Rev North

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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?

What if St Joseph being the normal God-fearing, Law-abiding man he was reputed to be not ever for one moment considering the possibility of having a sexual relationship with Mary?

If my wife was Mary, I sure as heck would love and honor her in a way fit for her station and role in the world’s salvation.

Robert

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why, in Luke chapter 2, when it records that Jesus (then age 12) remained behind in Jerusalem after going up with Mary and Joseph, is there no mention of any other siblings? Here is Jesus, and both Mary and Joseph look through the whole caravan for him; not finding him, they (and only they) return to look for him. What about the other children? Is it logical to go off looking for a 12-year old (by Jewish standards almost full grown) and to leave your (putative) younger children behind? Without a mention? Later on, mention of these ‘brethren’ crops up every time Jesus is ‘at home’ --why not a mention of them here, especially if they are younger than he and obviously in need of care?

Why, when Joseph and Mary are gone to Egypt for a period of several years, after Herod dies and it is safe to return, does the angel say, “Get up, take the child and his mother” . . .and not, “Get up, take the wife and kids”? Surely there would have been more little rugrats by then with a ‘normal’ marriage. But. . .no mention.

And above all, for 1500 years there is absolutely no problem, with the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church (which, in essence, is the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THROUGH THAT TIME) with believing that Jesus was the only child. Luther himself believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The whole cherry picking of one scriptural verse, out of context, was the product of the ‘modern’ Protestant teaching that attempted to make Mary into not even “just another woman” but into a more than flawed, even vilified, ‘vessel’. That narrow minded focus that says that not even the Mother of Christ could be considered as anything ‘special’, there is no such thing as ‘authority’, everybody is his own little ‘pope’, etc. is the byproduct of a society that had rejected all authority save ‘individual conscience’. Not, mind you, that individual conscience in itself is necessarily wrong; a well formed conscience will be led to truth. . .but to equate ‘individual conscience’ with 'freedom to pick and choose what ‘i’ want, and to reject anything that attempts to be seen as an ‘authority’ beyond ‘me’–that is the rub.

 

[patrick457]

-When Jesus came to Nazareth, He was called ‘the Son of Mary’ not ‘a Son of Mary’

-When Jesus’ brethren are introduced, they aren’t called ‘the children of Mary’ just like Jesus but just ‘the brethren of Jesus’

-James ‘the Brother of the Lord’ was traditionally identified with James the Less, but in Matthew he was called ‘James the Son of Alphaeus’. Halphai can be rendered in Greek as Clopas or Alphaeus. John reports that ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ stood at the foot of the Cross’. If we synchronize it with the Synoptics, this Mary would be the ‘Mary the mother of James and Joseph (or Joses)’. As for Joses, he is ‘Jude, the brother of James’ while Simon was ‘Simon the Cananean’.

-Jesus’ brethren advised him to go to Judea and make Himself famous, which would only make sense if they were older than Jesus, but elsewhere Jesus is called ‘the first-born’ so this would be a faux pas for Eastern cultures since it was the eldest who advised the younger ones and not vice versa.

(Continued below)

 

[REESE_HOWELL]

Really, all you will pretty much get here on this topic is that there is no ‘word’ for cousin in the hebrew language so the word for brother is used.

My only request is that someone tell me why the catholic church, in interpreting the bible, didn’t just put cousins when the time came because the KNEW that that is what was meant. Why did they choose to use ‘brothers’? Why do they keep using ‘brothers’?

Well sister they spent plenty of time trying to keep scriptures unchanged even when changing languages

 

[REESE_HOWELL]

when Jesus was on the cross and put Mary in the care of John if he had any brothers that would be bigest slap in the face in thier culture so to belive Jesus would insult his famialy in this way is not to believe in the ways of Jesus Christ who lived by all customs and laws of his culture

 

[Peregrino]

Not being in Scripture does not equate with devaluation or unimportance. Don’t argue from silence.

You are being rather presumptuous my friend. I am not “arguing from silence”. I wasn’t really arguing at all other than to point out the frequency of allusions to the “brothers of the Lord”. I wouldn’t call that silence. We can debate all day about terms *anepsios and adelphos *and their usage in the New Testament.

Mary would NEVER be “devalued if she had other children.”

Your point begs the question “if Mary wouldn’t be devalued, why do we even care?” Why is a doctrine of perpetual virginity even needed? I suspect that it involves some Freudian squemishness or latent “concept of uncleanliness” associated with sex on the part of the early church elite.

If Mary had other children, she was simply being a normal 1st century Jewish wife. I think that is why you see such frequency of terms like “brothers and sisters” of Jesus and “brother of the Lord”. It is no big deal. Who cares?

And yes I am Catholic.

 

[Zenas]

Like most protestants, I grew up thinking Mary had other children after Jesus. Once a model is established in your mind, it is hard to change. However, a careful reading of scripture does not lead to the certain conclusion that Mary had other children; nor does it absolutely rule it out. What changed my mind and led me to believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life (or at least had no more children) was a consideration of John 19:25-27:

25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

In my view it is unthinkable that Mary would have gone to live with John if she had any other children. Protestant scholars have difficulty explaining this away and their explanations are unconvincing. Most are to the effect that the brothers of Jesus may not yet have come to believe in Him. Jesus wanted His mother to be in the care of a believer; therefore he gave her to John. These scholars just assume that Mary had other children, so their explanation is awkward and speculative. However, if Mary had no other children, it is no mystery why Jesus gave her to John.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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.

It is this statement of yours, Peregrino, where my ‘presumption’ arose.

The sentence in bold is what caused me to ask those questions.

Believing Catholics believe in Catholic doctrines and dogma.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the teachings about Our Lady that Catholics are not allowed to question or debate.

It was decreed by the Second General Council of Constantinople in 553.

Sorry for the presumption

Robert

 

[bpbasilphx]

**It also says that Mary and Joseph did not have physical relations UNTIL after Jesus was born. **

And in the SAME Gospel, the SAME Greek word is used in Matthew 28:20.

If EOS in Matthew 1 means that Joseph and Mary had relations, then EOS in Matthew 28 means that at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

FURTHERMORE:

“Firstborn son” has a technical meaning among Jews. It refers to the child that is subject to the “redemption of the firstborn” (which is still practiced among Jews).

If a woman’s FIRST pregnancy results in the LIVE birth of a MALE child, this is considered “firstborn son” and is subject to the law of being redeemed.

If her first prengancy results in the delivery of a GIRL, or a stillbirth of either sex, or is terminated by abortion or miscarriage, and the SECOND pregnancy brings a son, this child is NOT considered “firstborn son.”

In other words, “firstborn son” need not mean the woman ever had other children.

And remember–Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels.

MOREOVER

There are many places in the Bible, such as Matthew 1:2, where “brother” was not of the same mother at all. “Judah and his brothers” had 4 mothers among them.

So, there’s no way you can “prove” from the Bible that Mary had other children.

The SAME CHURCH whose tradition taught what books would be in the Bible ALSO has the tradition of teaching the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.

You see, if you go to the Bible, you are ACTUALLY appealing to tradition to start with.

 

[patrick457]

-As for the ‘until’:
You are using the narrow, modern meaning of ‘until’ here. Remember that languages change by time and many words either have their meanings extended or narrowed or completely changed.
Take the word ‘girl’; it originally meant a young child of either sex, but now we use it for a child of the female gender.
‘Nice’ originally meant ‘unknowing’, i.e. ‘dumb’.
‘Comedy’ meant any story with a happy ending; what we call comedy now was called ‘farce’.

If we read any texts with the modern meaning of until, we would get:

‘And Michal the daughter of Saul was without child till the day of her death.’ (She must’ve become pregnant after she died)

No one knows Moses’ grave ‘until the present day’ (Evidently the writer meant the time he was writing this text, but we still don’t know its location either)

‘I love her until I die’ (Guess I’ll start to hate her once I kick the bucket, cross the bar, shuffle my mortal coil and join the choir invisible)

 

[Nella]

-As for the ‘until’:
You are using the narrow, modern meaning of ‘until’ here. Remember that languages change by time and many words either have their meanings extended or narrowed or completely changed.
Take the word ‘girl’; it originally meant a young child of either sex, but now we use it for a child of the female gender.
‘Nice’ originally meant ‘unknowing’, i.e. ‘dumb’.
‘Comedy’ meant any story with a happy ending; what we call comedy now was called ‘farce’.

If we read any texts with the modern meaning of until, we would get:

‘And Michal the daughter of Saul was without child till the day of her death.’ (She must’ve become pregnant after she died)

No one knows Moses’ grave ‘until the present day’ (Evidently the writer meant the time he was writing this text, but we still don’t know its location either)

‘I love her until I die’ (Guess I’ll start to hate her once I kick the bucket, cross the bar, shuffle my mortal coil and join the choir invisible)

You are running a hundred miles to beat around this bush that still says Scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

See, I have no problem with Jesus either having siblings or not. It makes no never mind to my salvation nor my relationship with God. So to argue the point is pointless in my opinion. The question I stated is more out of curiousity than anything…

I would have no problem if Jesus did have brothers and sisters either. However, He did not so I like to stick with the Truth.

 

[Peregrino]

Mary would NEVER be “devalued if she had other children.”

If it wouldn’t matter, doesn’t that make the doctrine meaningless? Why have a doctrine at all? Silliness.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the teachings about Our Lady that Catholics are not allowed to question or debate.

What are we hiding here? Sexual intercourse is not dirty. Childbirth is an incredible miracle, capable of changing the world (evidence Jesus’ birth). There is absolutely no reason to insist upon Mary’s “perpetual” virginity UNLESS it is believed that sex is sinful in some way or another.

Mandating silence and mind control on this issue degrades the credibility and authority of the Chuch IMHO.

 

[VWcrazy]

[You are running a hundred miles to beat around this bush that still says Scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters/QUOTE]

Yep - 120 brothers and sisters. That’s what Scripture says.

 

[patrick457]

While Scripture doesn’t say ‘Jesus never had siblings’ it also doesn’t say ‘This men here are Jesus’ actual blood siblings and are the biological offspring of Mary and Joseph and should be interpreted literally’ either.

I’ve never heard them described as ‘the biological/actual/blood/literal brethren of Jesus’ unless it be in a Gospel the Church forgot to include when she decided the Canon of the Bible.

P.S. I’ve seen some on the internet who actually theorized theEarly Church assasinated Jesus’ brethren historically and literally so the Church can ‘desexualize’ Mary and turn her into an ever-Virgin and into a ‘near-goddess’ status (Such a bad sexist, patriarchal Church that will go to lengths to ‘assasinate’ Jesus’ brothers, especially his sisters!)

Since ‘whoever does the Will of God isMy brother and sister and mother’, I guess He has not just 120, but 3 Billion brothers and sisters and mothers, not counting those already dead.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Mandating silence and mind control on this issue degrades the credibility and authority of the Chuch IMHO.

I don’t understand the mandating silence part … can you explain what you mean, here?

Mind control - you don’t have too much respect for the many Catholic Saints and Church Fathers who have spoken of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Do you think they were victims of mind control? Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying.

Also, you put in there IMHO - In my humble opinion. You lack humility, in my bold opinion. This is a doctrine of the Church. Don’t you say that you are Catholic? Maybe I read your profile wrong. Disagreeing with this doctrine of the faith is heresy.

I think you need to reexamine your faith, and the Teachings of the Church.

Nothing can degrade the authority of the Church, by the way. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.