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

[Nella]

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

A very interesting thought about Joseph no doubt.

 

[Little_Mary]

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??

No. If Jesus was YOUR cousin, wouldn’t you go see your aunt and uncle a lot??

Also, who’s to say that the author wasn’t speaking of the apostles, or others?

 

[Nella]

No. If Jesus was YOUR cousin, wouldn’t you go see your aunt and uncle a lot??

Also, who’s to say that the author wasn’t speaking of the apostles, or others?

Not in the context of how Scripture reads. It shows that Jesus’ siblings were with him and Mary and Joseph on many occasions. I as you wish to be with Jesus for an eternity, but what I am talking about is how Scripture portraits the family.

 

[Nella]

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.

Much of this I can somewhat concur with. You have also made several statements here that just have no Biblical basis. How is Mary the ark of the new covenant?? Mary was a mere woman chosen for a special purpose. She is not divine nor does she play a role in our salvation. Much of it is merely an add-on belief that builds like a snowball. Jesus warned us about letting such a thing happen. Mary is saint and foremost of all saints, but I don’t believe she is our mother.

 

[FCEGM]

Not in the context of how Scripture reads. It shows that Jesus’ siblings were with him and Mary and Joseph on many occasions. I as you wish to be with Jesus for an eternity, but what I am talking about is how Scripture portraits the family.

Nella, is Joseph is literally Jesus’ father? After all, Scripture literally says “carpenter’s son,” not “carpenter’s foster son.” So, if Joseph can be called Jesus’ father, when he was not, in fact, His literal father, then James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas can be called Jesus’ “brothers” when they were not His literal siblings.

Once one sees the list of the supposed sons of Mary, a red light should turn on. Never is a child named after his father, since the father’s name used to be what today we call the family’s name: Ben Joseph in Hebrew or Bar Joseph in Aramaic. So obviously the “brothers” mentioned are Jesus closest friends or relatives such as cousins.

The point is that, objectively and really, these men were called (and known as) Jesus’ “brothers.” Yet, within a Jewish tribal context, this does not mean that they were His literal siblings. Needless to say, these “brothers” are never called “sons of Joseph” or “sons of Mary.” If that’s what they were, then the Gospel writers could easily identified them as such.

One cannot assume that “father, mother, brother, sister” refers to the modern American nuclear family, as opposed to the kind of extended families that were typical in ancient times and throughout the Mediterranean to this day. So, you are correct in that we should be clear as to what Scripture says about familial relationships. For the Jews, the familial relationship was extended in nature, in which large groups of people all lived in the same household, and where nursing mothers within the family would take-turns nursing both their own children and those of their sister’s, sister’s-in-law, cousins, aunts, etc. - all being raised in the same extended household, all of these children were regarded as “brothers” (and “sisters”), no matter what their actual biological relationships might be. This is what Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are referring to:

1. His father - Joseph
2. His mother - Mary
3. His brothers - all the male members of His household/extended family (including cousins, uncles, nephews, and the husbands of female cousins, aunts, and nieces). . .James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas being named specifically because they were known bishops of the 1st Century Church.
4. His sisters - all the female members of His household/extended family (including cousins, aunts, nieces, and the wives of male cousins, uncles, and nephews, etc.).

Let’s look at Matt. 12:46-50 when the Lord is told that His mother and brothers have arrived. What does this refer to? After an entire chapter of using very clever, rabbinical language, is Jesus suddenly speaking literally? Not at all. Just as when He uses the cure of the possessed man in Matt. 12:22 to make a symbolic point, twenty-one verses later in Matt. 12:43-45 Jesus is also speaking figuratively in reference to His mother and His brothers. IOW, He is using their arrival to illustrate a point, and He is making that point by alluding to yet another reference to the Old Testament.

Matt 12:46-50:

“While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him. Someone told Him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.’ But He said in reply to the one who told Him, ‘Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?’ And, stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother,” Matthew 12:46-50.

So, what is really going on here?

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

First of all, notice how it says, “Someone told Him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside …’ ”. Well, who is this “someone”? If we read carefully, the Scripture lets us know. Notice, for example, that Jesus responds to this person by “stretching out His hand toward His disciples,” and then speaking directly to the “someone,” saying: “Here are my mother and my brothers.” So, what does that tell us? Well again, if we read carefully, we immediately notice that this “someone” is not one of His disciples (i.e., the people who followed after Him when He withdrew from the synagogue in Matt. 12:15). Therefore, this “someone” can only be one of the Pharisees.

So, Jesus is addressing one of the Pharisees when He gives His reply about His mother and brothers. He is, therefore, speaking in the same kind of rabbinical language that He used against them earlier.

Therefore, what is Jesus saying? Well, for starters, Jesus is not referring to His mother and His brothers at all. Rather, He is teaching something about the Church (i.e., the true Israel), as opposed to the false, corrupt, apostate Israel of the Pharisees. To do this, He is using rabbinical language to play off of Psalm 69:9-10 and the Book of Hosea, which speak of Israel as “my mother” and of fellow Jews as “my brothers”:

“I have become an outcast to my brothers,
a stranger to my mother’s sons,
Because zeal for Your House consumes me.”
Hosea 2:4:

“Protest against your mother, protest!
For she is not my wife and I am not her Husband."
Hosea 2:4

These, and numerous other passages in the Old Testament, illustrate a very long-standing Scriptural tradition of speaking of Israel (or the synagogue) as a “mother” and of fellow Jews as one’s “brothers.” As in Hosea, Israel is frequently depicted as an unfaithful wife and mother - a mother who commits spiritual fornication with other gods (i.e., Baal: Hosea 2:15, 2:18-19, etc.), and who violates the relationship with her true husband, God the Father. Yet, God will reform His “unfaithful wife” (Hosea 2:9-16), and make her His own forever (Hosea 2:21-22)

So, Jesus is speaking about Israel and the synagogue as His mother. In doing so, He is saying that the community of disciples gathered around Him in the home of Simon Peter is His true mother, as opposed to the corrupt, apostate Israel represented by the Pharisees and their synagogue (Revelation 2:9). Neither is their corrupt, apostate Israel His mother, nor does their status as fellow-Jews make them His brothers (Psalm 69:9-10). Rather, His true mother is the true Israel: the Church (1 Peter 2:9-10, Rev 12:1-6), the true Household of God (Psalm 69:9-10, 1 Tim 3:15, Ephesians 2:19-22); and His true brothers [and sisters] are those who do the will of the Father - those who followed Him out of the synagogue; those who belong to the Church (i.e., Christians) – and Mary is this par excellence, and presented by the sacred writers – particularly St. John, as THE Type of the Church.

That’s how Scripture portrays Jesus’ family.

 

[rbarcia]

**

Luke 2

41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

44But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

**

The text above does not suggest that Joseph and Mary did not have other children. You cannot say from this that it was a family of 3.

Mary presented herself for purification

**

Luke 2

22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

**

Luke would have made a comment on her not needing purification if it was the case. This is not the same as Jesus being baptized because the Bible explicitly said Jesus did not need it.

**

Matthew 13:55

* "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 3:31

* "There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him." 

Mark 6:3

* "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Matthew 12:46

* "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him." 

John 2:12

* "After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His Mother, and His Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."

John 7:3-5

* "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

* For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

* For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Acts 1:14

* "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." 

Galatians 1:19

* "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

**
The majority of the time, the mention of His brothers is often after His mother. Seems like the context clearly indicates that Mary had other children.

 

[LilyM]

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

:banghead: You’ve been told again and again that Mary was an absolutely unique case. You’re being blindly unreasonable now.

If EVERY gold box was the Ark of the Covenant then it would be impermissible to touch any of 'em as it was for Uzzah to touch the Ark. Every gold box is NOT the Ark - there is only one to which this commandment applied.

Similarly not EVERY woman physically bore God Incarnate in their womb, and GAVE Him His entire human nature. Think about that. SHE gave HIM his human nature. From where else did it come but Mary? If direct from the Father then the Father would have fashioned Jesus’ body Himself as He did Adam’s.

If EVERY woman did so, then it WOULD be impermissible to touch any woman. Mary was the only one, so it is only to her that this rule applies.

I think I mentioned this earlier, maybe no-one’s addressed it, but God got a child upon Mary BEFORE she was married to Joseph. Unless you’re willing to suggest that she was a fornicator or an adulterer (since none of the worthy Prophets were above God’s law, and God never asked them to break it) then it means that she in a real sense was the spouse of God.

And sex with Joseph would in fact be the adultery or fornication. Yes, a form of marriage was necessary between them, so that Joseph could effectively protect her and Jesus, and Jesus could have a normal childhood for most intents and purposes. But God had the prior and strongest claim.

 

[FCEGM]

**

Luke 2

22 Now when the days of her purification** according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

Luke would have made a comment on her not needing purification if it was the case. This is not the same as Jesus being baptized because the Bible explicitly said Jesus did not need it.

.

Her purification was done in accord with the Jewish Law for all women who had recently given birth. Had she refused this she would have been unable to participate in the worship of all faithful Jews being considered ritually unclean. Simple.

 

[patrick457]

Much of this I can somewhat concur with. You have also made several statements here that just have no Biblical basis. How is Mary the ark of the new covenant?? Mary was a mere woman chosen for a special purpose. She is not divine nor does she play a role in our salvation. Much of it is merely an add-on belief that builds like a snowball.

Here’s why we Catholics believe Mary is the Ark:

The Ark contained a jar of Manna-Mary bore the Heavenly Manna, the Bread of Life in her womb

The Ark stayed at Obed-Edom’s house for three months in the hill country of Judah (2 Sam. 6: 11)-Mary was with Elizabeth for three months in the hill country of Judea (Lk. 2: 56)

David leapt and danced as the Ark was being brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6: 14-16)-The unborn John the Baptist ‘leapt’ in the womb as Mary greeted Elizabeth (Lk. 1: 41, 44)

The Ark bears the Tablets of the Law of the Old Covenant-Mary bore Jesus who established in His person the New Covenant

continued

 

[FCEGM]

How is Mary the ark of the new covenant?? . . .

Compare 2 Samuel 6 and the procession of the Ark to the house of Obed-edom to Luke 1:39ff.

 

[LilyM]

Luke would have made a comment on her not needing purification if it was the case. This is not the same as Jesus being baptized because the Bible explicitly said Jesus did not need it.

---

Jesus was circumcised at eight days of age, as was every other Jewish male child. This is the same day on which He was given His name. The Gospels record this event without specifying that Jesus didn’t require circumcision. So your argument holds no water.

Acts 1:14

 

[Sabda]

Much of this I can somewhat concur with. You have also made several statements here that just have no Biblical basis. How is Mary the ark of the new covenant?? Mary was a mere woman chosen for a special purpose. She is not divine nor does she play a role in our salvation. Much of it is merely an add-on belief that builds like a snowball. Jesus warned us about letting such a thing happen. Mary is saint and foremost of all saints, but I don’t believe she is our mother.

Luke’s Nativity scene ties in with King David and the ark scene in the Old Testament.

Here is an article from Steve Ray.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp

Fisheaters also has a good article on typology in general.

fisheaters.com/typology.html

Here is a Bible study from Scott Hahn that you can look at if you want.

salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/course2_lesson1.cfm

 

[Peregrino]

:banghead: You’ve been told again and again that Mary was an absolutely unique case. You’re being blindly unreasonable now.

If EVERY gold box was the Ark of the Covenant then it would be impermissible to touch any of 'em as it was for Uzzah to touch the Ark. Every gold box is NOT the Ark - there is only one to which this commandment applied.

lol…“you have been told again and again that 2+2=5, -you are being blindly unreasonable now”!

Obviously Mary was a unique case. I don’t see how this precludes her from having other children.

Your “ark of the covenant” assertion (an assertion made by some of the Church Fathers) seems to simply be a retroactive application of an old paradigm to a new situation. I am sorry that this desire for “theological consistency” comes into conflict with scriptural texts.

Rbarcia has done the hard work here.

** Matthew 13:55

• “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

**** Mark 6:3

• “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” **

I agree with his conclusion that Mary’s name mentioned in the same sentence as "the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon ", is significant. However, in the interest of fairness, it doesn’t preclude the possibility of these names being the step-brothers of Jesus.

And sex with Joseph would in fact be the adultery or fornication. Yes, a form of marriage was necessary between them, so that Joseph could effectively protect her and Jesus, and Jesus could have a normal childhood for most intents and purposes. But God had the prior and strongest claim.

I think this is your strongest argument. There is no proof for it but I find it interesting.

I think what we find in Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is more a desire to find this than a scriptural/evidential reality. Certainly, it would be more accurate to say “we don’t know for sure if Mary bore other children”.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

I think what we find in Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is more a desire to find this than a scriptural/evidential reality. . . .".

Not at all. The Church is simply teaching what it has known from the beginning (the same Church which, btw, alone has the authority to determine Christian doctrine). This article is an excellent one on the topic at hand:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

 

[FCEGM]

lol…“you have been told again and again that 2+2=5, -you are being blindly unreasonable now”!

Obviously Mary was a unique case. I don’t see how this precludes her from having other children.

Your “ark of the covenant” assertion (an assertion made by some of the Church Fathers) seems to simply be a retroactive application of an old paradigm to a new situation. I am sorry that this desire for “theological consistency” comes into conflict with scriptural texts.

Rbarcia has done the hard work here.

** Matthew 13:55

• “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

**** Mark 6:3

• “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” **

I agree with his conclusion that Mary’s name mentioned in the same sentence as "the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon ", is significant. However, in the interest of fairness, it doesn’t preclude the possibility of these names being the step-brothers of Jesus.

I think this is your strongest argument. There is no proof for it but I find it interesting.

I think what we find in Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is more a desire to find this than a scriptural/evidential reality. Certainly, it would be more accurate to say “we don’t know for sure if Mary bore other children”.

A previous post of mine addresses the above.

 

[ragincajunjoe]

lol…“you have been told again and again that 2+2=5, -you are being blindly unreasonable now”!

Obviously Mary was a unique case. I don’t see how this precludes her from having other children.

Your “ark of the covenant” assertion (an assertion made by some of the Church Fathers) seems to simply be a retroactive application of an old paradigm to a new situation. I am sorry that this desire for “theological consistency” comes into conflict with scriptural texts.

Rbarcia has done the hard work here.

** Matthew 13:55

• “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

**** Mark 6:3

• “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” **

I agree with his conclusion that Mary’s name mentioned in the same sentence as "the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon ", is significant. However, in the interest of fairness, it doesn’t preclude the possibility of these names being the step-brothers of Jesus.

I think this is your strongest argument. There is no proof for it but I find it interesting.

I think what we find in Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is more a desire to find this than a scriptural/evidential reality. Certainly, it would be more accurate to say “we don’t know for sure if Mary bore other children”.

I was under the impression that those particular 4 “brothers” of Jesus were more like stepbrothers. Joseph was fairly old when Mary married him and I was under the impression he had already married one woman and that woman died after bearing 4 sons (Jesus’s STEPbrothers) and a few daughters (Jesus’s STEPsisters). Now as Jesus was raised with those children, it would be obvious that He would think of them as brothers and sisters wouldn’t he? Just a thought.

 

[FCEGM]

I was under the impression that those particular 4 “brothers” of Jesus were more like stepbrothers. Joseph was fairly old when Mary married him and I was under the impression he had already married one woman and that woman died after bearing 4 sons (Jesus’s STEPbrothers) and a few daughters (Jesus’s STEPsisters). Now as Jesus was raised with those children, it would be obvious that He would think of them as brothers and sisters wouldn’t he? Just a thought.

And the right one. We don’t really know what Joseph’s age was or whether he was previously married; but we do know, of course, is that he is the foster-father of Jesus and that the Blessed Virgin remained so.

 

[LilyM]

lol…“you have been told again and again that 2+2=5, -you are being blindly unreasonable now”!

Obviously Mary was a unique case.

So you agree with me that 2+2 in fact equals 4 and that Mary was a unique case. That’s all I was saying. So why think that ordinary rules and behaviours connected with marriage applied to her and Joseph? Their relationship was most certainly a unique one two.

• “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

I would point out that these assertions are in fact wrong in at least one particular - Joseph was NOT Jesus’ father. Jesus was NOT the carpenter’s son. So why assume any validity in the claims about siblings (assuming that the reference even is to blood siblings)

I think this is your strongest argument. There is no proof for it but I find it interesting.

I think what we find in Catholic dogma regarding Mary’s “perpetual” virginity is more a desire to find this than a scriptural/evidential reality. Certainly, it would be more accurate to say “we don’t know for sure if Mary bore other children”.

Do you think for a second God would allow ordinary mortal beings to inhabit the womb of Mary which had been consecrated and set apart from the beginning of time and before as His dwelling place?

Did people camp out in the Holy of Holies in the Temple? Absolutely not. Even the priests didn’t enter it - only the High Priest on one single occasion a year because God ordered that it be done on that one occasion.

If this hadn’t been ordered, we can be certain it would NEVER have been entered by anyone. The Jews never even wrote God’s name - how would they think themselves worthy to enter His Holy of Holies! And Mary was a living breathing Holy of Holies, every bit as much so as the one of stone and brick in Jerusalem.

Joseph was a worthy man but he was also a devout Jew, living in proper fear of God. He knew whence Mary’s child came. He simply would not have seen himself as having rights over the body of Mary once God had overshadowed her and begotten a child upon her, any more than he would have barged into the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[patrick457]

-The Ark carried Aaron’s staff that budded (a shepherd’s staff)-Mary bore the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10: 11-18), the one who will shepherd Israel (Matt. 2: 6) and rule the nations with an iron rod (Ps. 2: 9, Rev. 19: 15)

-In Revelation 11: 19, God’s Temple in Heaven was opened and the Ark of His Covenant was seen. Then just one verse later (Rev. 12: 1) the Woman of Revelation 12 appears. Even more remarkable since there were no chapters or verses then.

‘Then the Temple of God in Heaven opened and the Ark of His Covenant could be seen in it. There were flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, an earthquake and a violent hailstorm. And a great sign was seen from the heavens, a woman clothed with the sun…’

Nella, you’re correct that Mary isn’t considered on par with God. Why do we consider her our Mother?
If we believe that Jesus is our elder brother (Heb. 2: 11-18),should wenot consider Mary as our Mother? In honoring her we only follow the Commandment ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’.

Continued