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

[Peregrino]

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.

“Brother of the Lord” and “mother, brothers and sisters” seems pretty dang close to saying “these people here are Jesus’ actual blood siblings”. What more do you want-testimony about a DNA test?

Is there something here that needs to be hidden?

 

[patrick457]

One ironic thing is that Luther, Calvin,Wesley and Zwingli themselves upheld Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

‘Actually, we should hold to be satisfied simply that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity.’-Luther, ‘That Jesus Christ was born a Jew’

‘I firmly believe that (Mary), according to the words of the Gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.’ -Zwingli, A sermon on the eternal Virginity of Mary, Sept. 17, 1522

‘I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature and the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted Virgin.’ -Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749

 

[JFonseka]

Forgive me but this just sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole… It just doesn’t fit… To weak of an argument. Again, why would it be interpreted as ‘brothers’ if they knew that the word actually should have been ‘cousins’?

It’s the direct translation from the original scripture, why is there so much confusion here, it even happens in the modern day…all these rappers calling each other their brothers, are they really siblings? NO

Brother and sister is also used to indicate the closeness between two people, not necessarily in the biologically related sense.

 

[patrick457]

I’d like to beat the bush once more:

-The Aramaic language did NOT have words for ‘cousin’ and used aha-brother, ahyana-kinsman, qariwa-close relation or nasha-relative.

-There was no indication that Mary did not remain a Virgin after Jesus (the Greek word ‘heos’ has a broader meaning than our ‘until’ and can mean ‘He had not known her at any time before she bore a Son’ or 'He had not known her when she bore a Son). Jesus was called ‘first-born’ because even if only one Son be born, He would still be the first-born, the one who opened the mother’s womb.

-Joseph and Mary not having other children might be strange, but not as strange as having God in your house. They are not a normal family and never expect them to act like one.

-Jesus did not speak English so He didn’t have the luxury of distinction between brothers and cousins like we do, nor was the culture of the Bible Western culture (And it wasn’t written in English either with ‘King James Version’ on the heading.

 

[Peregrino]

-Jesus did not speak English so He didn’t have the luxury of distinction between brothers and cousins like we do, nor was the culture of the Bible Western culture (And it wasn’t written in English either with ‘King James Version’ on the heading.

Not having studied Aramaic, I can’t comment on your assestion.

However, I do know that the writers of the Gospels wrote in Greek. They did have words for brothers and cousins. It didn’t really matter that “Jesus didn’t have the luxury of distinguishing between brothers and cousins” since he didn’t write the gospels. In this context, Jesus’ language is irrelevant.

-There was no indication that Mary did not remain a Virgin after Jesus.

Sure there is-the frequent comments about Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Debate all you want about whether that meant cousins, step-siblings or blood brothers; you yourself said that Jesus was the firstborn. There is still the suggestion/possibility (rather strong in my opinion) that Mary had other children from her womb.

The fact that Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is even an important issue speaks volumes about the psychology of Catholicism or at least the Catholicism of the early church elite.

 

[Scottgun]

The fact is we know that some of the ones listed as brothers are not blood brothers, so unless those opposed to perpetual virginity can come up with a specific name and proof he was in utero from Mary, the teaching stands unscathed and, as John Calvin said, no one will keep up this argument except out of a fondness for disputation. Naysaying perpetual virginity is a very recent development and is an example of certain theologies letting their not-the-Catholic polemic get the better of them.

 

[LilyM]

Not having studied Aramaic, I can’t comment on your assestion.

However, I do know that the writers of the Gospels wrote in Greek. They did have words for brothers and cousins. It didn’t really matter that “Jesus didn’t have the luxury of distinguishing between brothers and cousins” since he didn’t write the gospels. In this context, Jesus’ language is irrelevant.

The Greek-speaking-Jewish translators of the Septuagint version of the OT ALSO wrote in Greek - they too had the luxury of being able to substitute ‘nephew’ and ‘uncle’ in regard to Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob, where the original text used ‘brothers’.

They CHOSE, as did many other translators after them, deliberately to retain the flavour of the original and used ‘brothers’ in most of these references instead. Why does it surprise you that the NT would do the same?

 

[patrick457]

The Greek-speaking-Jewish translators of the Septuagint version of the OT ALSO wrote in Greek - they too had the luxury of being able to substitute ‘nephew’ and ‘uncle’ in regard to Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob, where the original text used ‘brothers’.

They CHOSE, as did many other translators after them, deliberately to retain the flavour of the original and used ‘brothers’ in most of these references instead. Why does it surprise you that the NT would do the same?

Yep, Exactly. The NT writers preserved ‘Semitisms’ within the text like the translators of the Septuagint; they simply translated idioms literally just as it is. Just as someone said, we should treat the NT Greek text as if it were ‘Hebrew/Aramaic in disguise’.

bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html
(On the Semitic style of the New Testament)

 

[Peregrino]

The Greek-speaking-Jewish translators of the Septuagint version of the OT ALSO wrote in Greek - they too had the luxury of being able to substitute ‘nephew’ and ‘uncle’ in regard to Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob, where the original text used ‘brothers’.

They CHOSE, as did many other translators after them, deliberately to retain the flavour of the original and used ‘brothers’ in most of these references instead. Why does it surprise you that the NT would do the same?

Good question. I can’t honestly answer why these translators would purposefully include an inaccuracy in the text when they had the “luxury” (to use Patrick’s term) of being accurate. Of course, some people will make the “flavor” argument; of course, it just could have been the result of a “sloppy” translation from the original rather than including or updating the translation to reflect the knowledge of the relationships they had at the time. Perhaps it was just easier to directly translate “brother” rather than write “Jacob, the nephew of Laban”.

So you are ultimately saying that because the Septuagint is inaccurate, that this inaccuracy supports the “accuracy” of the “perpetual” virginity assertion made by Christians? Do I have that right?

I think it is sad when Catholics have to resort to people like Calvin and Luther as authoritative proof that their doctrines are right.

Let’s see, so far I have been told that:

1. As a Catholic that I am prohibited from questioning or debating this issue;
2. I am simply demonstrating a “fondness for disputation” for taken the Gospels at their words (brothers and sisters).

No one has yet to answer why the “perpetual” viginity of Mary is even important as a doctrine.

This question ultimately underlies the entire debate of whether “brothers and sisters” as used in the Gospel means what it says or means something else. If it is not important then there is no reason why we shouldn’t take the gospels at their word on this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No one has yet to answer why the “perpetual” viginity of Mary is even important as a doctrine.

On the contrary, people have been at pains to demonstrate the truth of the matter, from linking to Catholic teachings, from the ECFs onward, and even to this matter being upheld by Christians for some 1500 years, even by the ‘original’ reformers themselves.

It is ‘important’, not from the hundreds of little petty ‘relative’ reasons we can dredge up to hurl at the teachings, everything from “It means ‘THEY’ thought sex was dirty”, “it means that ‘THEY’ thought this would inflate Mary’s importance”, “it means that ‘THEY’ tacked on this 'unbiblical teaching”, “it means that ‘THEY’ attempted to twist scripture”.

Baloney. Not a one of these ‘man-made’ concepts has any impact whatsoever on a Truth.

If something is true, it is true no matter what interpretation (false) people would put on it.

Mary’s perpetual virginity, a truth, exists even if ‘some’ people ‘think’ professing that truth makes sex dirty, or inflates Mary’s importance, or ‘appears’ unbiblical. The problems are in their misinterpration, not the truth itself, and attempting to attack the truth by appealing that the misintepretations themselves are somehow the ‘real truth’ is the fallacy and folly here.

 

[Jestocost]

People who have difficulty with the concept of cousins=brothers should have a look at this: umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/termsys.html .

The site has nothing about religion on it but refers to the various systems people use to refer to kinship. The Eskimo kinship system that we all tend to be familiar with is really only used by industrialized western nations and some primitive hunter/gatherer societies.

I don’t know which system the Jews of Jesus’ time used (perhaps someone familiar with the ancient languages can help with that), but almost all other systems refer to at least some cousins using the same terms as for siblings. Also note that in some cases even if there are terms for some cousins, other cousins are considered the same as siblings.

This doesn’t even take into account less than literal uses of kinship words, such as when we call friends or even strangers brothers, sisters, or cousins.

 

[Jesusstreet]

No one has yet to answer why the “perpetual” viginity of Mary is even important as a doctrine.

MOTHER MARY’s perpetual virginity is important, because she is THE ARK OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. She is the MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING. Her purity as the NEW EVE overcomes the sin of eve, where as we see there is the harlot of babylon who is the “mother of all abominations” MOTHER MARY is the MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING, which was to be the role of eve, before the fall. MOTHER MARY is our MOTHER and her purity restores the word to purity where from the fallen nature of eve, abominations had entered into the world.

JESUS restores us to LIFE AND GRACE by HIS obedience. And by the purity of the ARK OF THE COVENANT BODY AND BLOOD OF MOTHER MARY we have a MOTHER with a pure and good heart. HER heart being pierced so that the thoughts of many could be known.

You’ll find this is all in Scripture, Genesis, Revelation, Luke, and Esther.

We see that a mother is like a fertile field that bares many fruits. The field that brings forth bitter fruits, is the fallen nature of eve, who is the mother of abominations, and MOTHER MARY is the NEW EVE who in purity is a fertile field which brings forth sweet fruits to the LORD. As we abide in GOD OUR FATHER, we abide in JESUS CHRIST and have a MOTHER IN MOTHER MARY THE BLESSED VIRGIN.

If it were not so, if we had a MOTHER defiled, as in eve, then there would be only abominations and desicrations of the temple, which is the BODY OF CHRIST. Each of us being members of that TEMPLE in which THE HOLY SPIRIT dwells in our hearts, making us ONE BODY which is the CHILD of MOTHER MARY, they MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST has MOTHER MARY as its ARK of the covenant.

This is not optional teaching. The purity and perpetual virginity, of our MOTHER MARY THE BLESSED VIRGIN is THE TRUTH.

 

[Peregrino]

MOTHER MARY’s perpetual virginity is important, because she is THE ARK OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. She is the MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING. Her purity as the NEW EVE overcomes the sin of eve, where as we see there is the harlot of babylon who is the “mother of all abominations” MOTHER MARY is the MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING, which was to be the role of eve, before the fall. MOTHER MARY is our MOTHER and her purity restores the word to purity where from the fallen nature of eve, abominations had entered into the world.

JESUS restores us to LIFE AND GRACE by HIS obedience. And by the purity of the ARK OF THE COVENANT BODY AND BLOOD OF MOTHER MARY we have a MOTHER with a pure and good heart. HER heart being pierced so that the thoughts of many could be known.

You’ll find this is all in Scripture, Genesis, Revelation, Luke, and Esther.

We see that a mother is like a fertile field that bares many fruits. The field that brings forth bitter fruits, is the fallen nature of eve, who is the mother of abominations, and MOTHER MARY is the NEW EVE who in purity is a fertile field which brings forth sweet fruits to the LORD. As we abide in GOD OUR FATHER, we abide in JESUS CHRIST and have a MOTHER IN MOTHER MARY THE BLESSED VIRGIN.

If it were not so, if we had a MOTHER defiled, as in eve, then there would be only abominations and desicrations of the temple, which is the BODY OF CHRIST. Each of us being members of that TEMPLE in which THE HOLY SPIRIT dwells in our hearts, making us ONE BODY which is the CHILD of MOTHER MARY, they MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST has MOTHER MARY as its ARK of the covenant.

This is not optional teaching. The purity and perpetual virginity, of our MOTHER MARY THE BLESSED VIRGIN is THE TRUTH.

How does having intercourse and children defile a person? How could Mary possibly been defiled by having intercourse and subsequently bearing children after Jesus? How is having intercourse/children in marriage an act of impurity?

How is it that Eve is fallen by eating from the tree of knowledge, how is it that she is defiled?

 

[Pons]

Well, sex in the right context is supposed to be good. But abstinence, for those who can handle it, is also supposed to be good (I hesitate to write “better”. After all, God calls people in different ways…)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

For one thing, in the 2nd cent. the sources all referring to the siblings emphasize that they were not Mary’s children. E.g. Protoevangelion of St. James.

 

[Peregrino]

Well, sex in the right context is supposed to be good. But abstinence, for those who can handle it, is also supposed to be good (I hesitate to write “better”. After all, God calls people in different ways…)

So I thought, but it appears that at least for Mary, sex would have “defiled” her (and presumably every other woman)…

 

[Jesusstreet]

You will note that when you eat something it becomes part of your flesh. This is the same sort of union in the marriage union Which eating of JESUS makes us bonded of marriage, a covenant of the flesh, to THE LORD. Thus the Church is JESUS’ bride. Now in Genesis, Eve was first tempted by the devil to “eat” of the “tree of KNOWLEDGE”. This clearly means that there was a union here, which could not be undone but was an indissoluble union, as is the covenant of the flesh in the marriage union. After this even then went to adam and tempted him. Which is what the devil did to her, and then adam and eve had to confront GOD hiding their sin which was obvious to GOD. They hid their “nakedness”.

They were defiled in disobedience into an indissoluble covenant of the flesh because they “ate” the forbidden fruit. Of course we could make a quantum leap here and show how eve was the mother of all the harlots and abominations of the Earth “a mystery” . … how the first child of Eve was a murderer as was satan, and how some people are children of the devil, but those who do what GOD wants are of GOD OUR FATHER. This defilement led to the downfall and subsequent bitter fruits of sin and death entered the world. And of course, the children of Adam were since Eve tempted him after she was tempted by the Serpent.

Being married doesn’t defile a person, because the only real defilement is of the heart. that is a woman can be raped but still be undefiled in her heart. But the TRUE defilement of a person is in disobedience to GOD. That being said, a deliberate and willful act of disobedience in sin is a defilement of the soul.

MOTHER MARY however, has a different role to be pure and chaste of heart, to be not mother of a few, but MOTHER OF ALL THE LIVING. And by her purity of heart, she is overcoming the sin of the first eve. That is if the first eve is the “mother of all abominations” then MOTHER MARY is the MOTHER of all purity and goodness. in TRUTH MOTHER MARY has ONE CHILD JESUS CHRIST and through HIM she inherits many children, the entire CHURCH.

JESUS clearly defines these two families that coexist on Earth: Those who’s father is the devil, and those who’s father is GOD OUR FATHER. That we must then battle against the deceptions of the devil in the world. Often times it is our own soul battling against the flesh. We see that those who’s names are written in the book of life where there from the start, because of their lineage. That is to say those who are children of the devil, always were that, and the devil already has a place for him prepared.

We may ask then why the devil is allowed even to exist, clearly because the devil is a father too, and his children are here too until JESUS separates them wheat from chaff, goats from sheep, children of GOD from children of the devil.

Sexual pleasure in fact is a mirror of GOD’s pleasure in creation. We see that the woman travails in giving birth and this turns to joy. And that the consummation of the DIVINE MARRIAGE of GOD and man is fulfilled in GLORY AND JOY. The fruits of marriage are children. The fruits of the DIVINE MARRIAGE are the Saints. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the CHILDREN OF GOD. The woman’s travails turn to joy in the birth of her child. The pains in childbirth being of the judgment of GOD, and in subjection to her husband. The Pains of the CHURCH in giving birth to the CHILDREN OF GOD, will ultimately be the JOY of HEAVEN in the resurrection. The sexual pleasure of the flesh, will ultimately be the JOY of the union of the BRIDE AND THE BRIDEGROOM.

The perpetual LOVE of BRIDE for BRIDEGROOM will be eternal in HEAVEN for the faithful. But nothing that is defiled can defile GOD. Nor will any liar or maker of abominations enter the TEMPLE which is in HEAVEN.

But of course THE BODY OF CHRIST is the TEMPLE of the HOLY SPIRIT. We each being that TEMPLE having the HOLY SPIRIT within us as members of the BODY OF CHRIST. If the BODY is defiled it is a defilement of the SPIRIT. and that is a sin which made JESUS made, that they made the TEMPLE a den of thieves. This shows us too that adultery is akin to idolatry. That is to say that adultery which defiles the body is like as to false worship which defiles the temple. And so MOTHER MARY had to be a pure temple because she is THE ARK OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. And she had to remain this because she is still the ARK our MOTHER the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

 

[Jesusstreet]

How does having intercourse and children defile a person? How could Mary possibly been defiled by having intercourse and subsequently bearing children after Jesus? How is having intercourse/children in marriage an act of impurity?

How is it that Eve is fallen by eating from the tree of knowledge, how is it that she is defiled?

Sorry i ran out of room on my last post, this is a continuation of it, to answer your questions.

It should be clear the BODY is the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and therefore is to be pure. We must be aware of teh BODY OF CHRIST that we eat and drink worthily of CHRIST’s HOLY FLESH AND BLOOD. That we have a pure communion with the LORD is a pure entering into the sacred mysteries, not only SPIRITually but BODILY. This is the fulfillment of the marriage union between GOD AND MAN (you’ll recall the famous painting of GOD reaching out for man).

In the old testament the ARK was kept in the HOLY OF HOLIES. But that HOLY OF HOLIES is MOTHER MARY, and the BODY OF CHRIST is the TEMPLE. Where the HOLY SPIRIT dwells. And where as the ark bore the ten commandments, JESUS is the COVENANT which MOTHER MARY brings to us. You will recall also the sacred rules which prohibited anything defiled near the ark of the covenant. But this is a SPIRITual defilement, sin. The flesh itself avials nothing, it returns to the dust. It is the wickedness of the heart which is the defilement. And since we are united to CHRIST with the BREATH OF GOD in us, THE HOLY SPIRIT, the defilement of the flesh, becomes a defilemen to the TEMPLE becomes a defilment of the heart.

Thus we say that sin is a willful act of disobedience to the commandments. Without full knowledge and consent, without the intention to, and completion of, that sin, there is not any defilement. For instance judas iscariot, had first to intend to betray the LORD making arrangements, and then completed the sin with a kiss. If he had not done so would he have guilty of a sin, even though the wickedness already resided in his heart, as we see when he grew angry at the loss of expansive oils he wanted to steal for personal gain.

The flesh isn’t defiled in marriage, any more than the flesh is defiled in THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Unless the person unworthily enters into that union, or defiles that union through inchastity. That is by being unfaithful to the covenant a person becomes unchaste. A person in a marriage to another becomes unchaste in adultery or sexual sin. A person in the marriage of the EUCHARIST becomes unfaithful by idolitry or false worship. Sin itself, can become a point of contention in a marriage, doing things which upset the marriage, calling one another names, so too using the LORD’'s name in vain would be as hurtful as for a spouse to refer to their spouse by some horrible explative.

In every real sense this is a marriage, with the LORD, and by the same reasons we accept fidelity in marriage to a spouse, we must accept these things also hold in the DIVINE MARRIAGE. And the same intimacies exist, though the lust of the flesh is not of GOD OUR FATHER, the joy and longing, and affection of the heart is a DIVINE expression of the heart. The carnal lusts are from an animal nature of man which was not intended by GOD, but came into the world after the fall in our fallen nature.

But the marriage is a DIVINE intended union of man and woman. to which the bonding of the two becomes covenant of the flesh, manifest in their children, and indissoluable of the heart. Sexual pleasure is not then sinful in this union where it is an expression of the heart, in romantic LOVE for the spouse, it is only sinful in the lustful desires as of adultery. We wouldn’t even think of going and bowing in false worship to idols, say a budda idol, it woudl be an abomination. But that is what you are doing if you look at other women while being married, you are thinking well maybe CHRISTianity is right, but it might be kind of cool to go to a Mosque and pray for a while. It would be adultery to JESUS. Of course if you don’t do this, well your wife i’m sure would forgive you. As will JESUS not worry if you are devout to HIM.

You can’t have a wife other than your wife, nor can you have a GOD other than GOD OUR FATHER. You can’t call your wife mean names, neither can you use the name of GOD in vain. You can’t commit adultery, neither can you worship false GOD’s. All these things defile the temple. The joy, pleasure, purpose, and frutifulness of marriage, is an image of DIVINE, joy, pleasure, purpose, and fruitfulness in the DIVINE MARRIAGE of the BRIDE AND THE BRIDEGROOM.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Not according to the catholic church. According to them, there is no word for cousin so the word for ‘brothers’ was used…

There is a tradition held in the east that Joseph was very old when he was betrothed to St.Mary. This tradition also holds that Joseph was a widower (wife Sarah?) of much years with grown children one of which was James. Tradition also has it that this James “brother” of Jesus accompanied St. Mary, the infant Jesus and St. Joseph in their flight to Egypt to escape the brutal killings of Herod.

 

[Southsider433]

Mary was born without sin to concieve the “new” Adam who was born without sin. What could we wxpect from siblings of Jesus who were at least not born into full sin (if thats even possible). Would Mary automatically come out of the grace she was in after she gave birth to Jesus? Would not these “brothers” of Jesus played a more integral role in the establishment of the Church?Why hand it over to the twleve when the “brothers” were of the same blood and possible holiness of Jesus?Other than physical attributtes,what would the “half-brothers” of God had in common with Him? Oh yeah and I know my brothers would have died trying to save me from death, but were not to expect that from any of Jesus’s “brothers”.

As a side note a priest once told me that maybe Joseph the carpenter wasn’t mentioned in Jesus’s later years, was possibly he died earlier. God knew that Joseph would have tried to save his son Jesus. not doctrine just story