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

[LilyM]

The woman in Revelation 11-12 is Israel, not Mary. The Sun, Moon, and Stars clearly matches the dream Joseph, son of Jacob had and told his brothers.

Multiple meanings, sweetheart. Not every prophetic image in the Bible has only one meaning. John surely didn’t have only one single meaning in mind when he wrote such stuff, or he’d have written his one meaning plainly.

The woman is Israel, AND Mary, AND Christ’s Church besides (the 12 stars being the 12 Apostles perhaps).

 

[Sir_Knight]

The woman in Revelation 11-12 is Israel, not Mary. The Sun, Moon, and Stars clearly matches the dream Joseph, son of Jacob had and told his brothers.

According to who? Private interpretation of scripture which is NOT assured to be correct.

Or, should we follow the interpretation of the church, which scripture tells us is the fountain of truth and therefore can not teach any falsehood?

 

[Bible_Student]

Hmmm…,
This really does not matter very much in terms of eternal significance but I do believe the Bible is pretty clear on the fact that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters. The Greek New Testament also bears out the difference between brothers and cousins as well as Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which came 350+ years later. I think we can all agree that all truth is God’s truth, so in the interest of pursuing truth, which I can only claim to pursue and not personally possess here are a few verses that I believe bear this out:

The Greek (suggenes) is aptly translated as cousin
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she has also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate also render’s it as cousin or blood relative as well (see below)
et ecce Elisabeth cognata tua et ipsa concepit filium in senecta sua et hic mensis est sextus illi quae vocatur sterilis

Whereas these, a few of the representative verses specifically render brother as brother:
Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mat 4:21 And going on from there, he saw other two brethren, James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Mar 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.

All the above passages are translated as ‘brother’ from the Greek word ‘adelphos’

And from the Latin Vulgate iJerome renders it as thus:
“nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo”
Lt. ‘frater’ being translated as brother and ‘sorores’ being translated as sister, as opposed to the Latin cognata

That Jesus had brothers and sister is also echoed by some of the early Church fathers as well, especially with regard to James, the Lord’s brother. I think the stronger argument therefore is that the aforementioned men and women in the Gospel accounts actually were Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

Am I missing something in the analysis?

May the Lord Bless, Pat

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Hmmm…,

This really does not matter very much in terms of eternal significance but I do believe the Bible is pretty clear on the fact that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters. The Greek New Testament also bears out the difference between brothers and cousins as well as Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which came 350+ years later. I think we can all agree that all truth is God’s truth, so in the interest of pursuing truth, which I can only claim to pursue and not personally possess here are a few verses that I believe bear this out:

 

[Pons]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm

Yet another (excellent) explanation page. In short, you have to look at everything in context to understand their meaning, not just “cherry pick” (nice phrase) verses.

 

[Scottgun]

Multiple meanings, sweetheart. Not every prophetic image in the Bible has only one meaning. John surely didn’t have only one single meaning in mind when he wrote such stuff, or he’d have written his one meaning plainly.

The woman is Israel, AND Mary, AND Christ’s Church besides (the 12 stars being the 12 Apostles perhaps).

And there is the great irony. Catholics always get the heat that they are forbidden from interpreting Scripture. Yet, get to a passage like this, and watch the not-the-Catholics turn into SuperPope using the Dogmatic Missile with Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator to infallibly declare and bind on the faithful that this passage is Israel, ONLY Israel, and don’t you dare think it is Mary. And when your brain tells you that the son in this passage is Jesus and naturally makes a connection that His mother is Mary…well…just shut it out! Just say it is Israel and stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA!” before that connection makes itself evident.

Scott

 

[LilyM]

And there is the great irony. Catholics always get the heat that they are forbidden from interpreting Scripture. Yet, get to a passage like this, and watch the not-the-Catholics turn into SuperPope using the Dogmatic Misslle with Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator to infallibly declare and bind on the faithful that this passage is Israel, ONLY Israel, and don’t you dare think it is Mary. And when your brain tells you that the son in this passage is Jesus and naturally makes a connection that His mother is Mary…well…just shut it out! Just say it is Israel and stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA!” before that connection makes itself evident.

Scott

What the??? Where has the Church infallibly declared that the passage refers only to Israel??? On the contrary, the infallible teaching of *Munificentissimus Deus *makes it clear that it also refers to Mary!

 

[LilyM]

And there is the great irony. Catholics always get the heat that they are forbidden from interpreting Scripture. Yet, get to a passage like this, and watch the not-the-Catholics turn into SuperPope using the Dogmatic Misslle with Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator to infallibly declare and bind on the faithful that this passage is Israel, ONLY Israel, and don’t you dare think it is Mary. And when your brain tells you that the son in this passage is Jesus and naturally makes a connection that His mother is Mary…well…just shut it out! Just say it is Israel and stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA!” before that connection makes itself evident.

Scott

‘Oh no, my Dogmatic Missile with PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator!’

Yes, it is ironic that non-Catholics seem to think that they can interpret any scripture passage however they like, from Genesis to Revelation, as long as it is OTHER than a Catholic interpretation, which of course must be wrong even if it’s self-evidently right as in this case!

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<And from the Latin Vulgate iJerome renders it as thus:
“nonne iste est faber filius Mariae frater Iacobi et Ioseph et Iudae et Simonis nonne et sorores eius hic nobiscum sunt et scandalizabantur in illo”
Lt. ‘frater’ being translated as brother and ‘sorores’ being translated as sister, as opposed to the Latin cognata>>

As I mentioned earlier, there are many places in the Bible where “brother/sister” clearly does not mean “of the same mother,” and you yourself have brought up one such passage.

Matthew 1:2, according to Genesis, it took 4 mothers to have “Jacob and his brothers” (Rachel, Leah, and their handmaidens).

Earlier in Genesis, Abraham refers to Lot as his “brother,” though actually Lot was his nephew.

The Lord is just going to have to show it to you.

 

[jabelltulsa]

And there is the great irony. Catholics always get the heat that they are forbidden from interpreting Scripture. Yet, get to a passage like this, and watch the not-the-Catholics turn into SuperPope using the Dogmatic Missile with Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator to infallibly declare and bind on the faithful that this passage is Israel, ONLY Israel, and don’t you dare think it is Mary. And when your brain tells you that the son in this passage is Jesus and naturally makes a connection that His mother is Mary…well…just shut it out! Just say it is Israel and stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA!” before that connection makes itself evident.

Scott

SPOT ON!

And, by the way … I’m still laughing about “illudium” …

 

[Bible_Student]

**Good Morning Robert, **
Just a few questions to follow up on your reply. Just a little comment, however, you seem a little hot. Was there anything in the methodology of searching through the scriptures or in anything I’ve said that isn’t indicative that I’m only interested in the truth? (After all it’s only a post not a thesis). Personally I’m not pre-positional at all, especially when it comes to things historical) but rather I can always be convinced from scripture and empirical evidence to change my position. The only foreknowledge I claim to inherently possess is that God is good, that He loves us, that He sent His Son to die for our sins and that He is also the omnipotent and the just judge of us all. Everything else I try to understand as God gives me the light to see, in the evidences, testing all in the light of Scripture.

• Excuse me, Bible_Student, but ALL mainstream biblical scholars (there listed in the Oxford University’s Companion to the Bible and they include Catholic, Orthodox and ‘decline to state’ exegetes) agree that the Gospel of St Matthew is based on an Aramaic manuscript. There is NO Aramaic word for ‘cousin’ and the word for ‘brother’ is used for step-brother, cousin, blood brother, clan member, male relative beyond parents’ siblings sons.

 

[sandusky]

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?

Nella,

Here’s a debate on the subject, scroll down to #475, and download it in MP3 format for a couple of bucks, and you can listen to it on your computer, or iPod.

Catholics will complain that the protestant debater, James White, is a know-nothing, uncharitable, anti-catholic cur, and that Gerry Matatics, a former protestant minister, who at the time of the debate was considered a good Catholic apologist is now a fringe, and somewhat lunatic Catholic worthy of ignoring, but you are an adult who can filter out the howling from Catholics on this thread, and listen for yourself, and make your own decision.

 

[Bible_Student]

Hi BpBasil,

• As I mentioned earlier, there are many places in the Bible where “brother/sister” clearly does not mean “of the same mother,” and you yourself have brought up one such passage.
• Matthew 1:2, according to Genesis, it took 4 mothers to have “Jacob and his brothers” (Rachel, Leah, and their handmaidens).

I’m not exactly clear on this as I have for Matt 1:2

• Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

• Earlier in Genesis, Abraham refers to Lot as his “brother,” though actually Lot was his nephew.

I agree with what you have said here but would infer that Genesis is Hebrew and context, idioms are not the same. I will defer to the Septuagint to do more digging.

• The Lord is just going to have to show it to you.

I hope so brother! - the one thing I don’t want to have in seeking out God’s wisdom is a thick skull.

May God Bless, Pat

 

[Nella]

Nella,

Here’s a debate on the subject, scroll down to #475, and download it in MP3 format for a couple of bucks, and you can listen to it on your computer, or iPod.

Catholics will complain that the protestant debater, James White, is a know-nothing, uncharitable, anti-catholic cur, and that Gerry Matatics, a former protestant minister, who at the time of the debate was considered a good Catholic apologist is now a fringe, and somewhat lunatic Catholic worthy of ignoring, but you are an adult who can filter out the howling from Catholics on this thread, and listen for yourself, and make your own decision.

thanks for this info.

 

[Nella]

‘Oh no, my Dogmatic Missile with PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator!’

Yes, it is ironic that non-Catholics seem to think that they can interpret any scripture passage however they like, from Genesis to Revelation, as long as it is OTHER than a Catholic interpretation, which of course must be wrong even if it’s self-evidently right as in this case!

A person has an interpretation, a church or denomination has an interpretation and your Magisterium has an interpretation. What’s the difference? They are all interpretations its just that you believe that the Magisterium’s is right. Others believe it is not.

 

[jabelltulsa]

A person has an interpretation, a church or denomination has an interpretation and your Magisterium has an interpretation. What’s the difference? They are all interpretations its just that you believe that the Magisterium’s is right. Others believe it is not.

The difference is this: Only the Church is infallible. This can be found in Sacred Scripture. Private interpretation is not infallible according to Scripture.

You say a church or denomination has an interpretation. It is not infallible according to Sacred Scripture.

The infallible Church has declared that Mary is a virgin perpetually.

If you do not agree, then who do you believe is infallible and why?

 

[Nella]

The difference is this: Only the Church is infallible. This can be found in Sacred Scripture. Private interpretation is not infallible according to Scripture.

You say a church or denomination has an interpretation. It is not infallible according to Sacred Scripture.

The infallible Church has declared that Mary is a virgin perpetually.

If you do not agree, then who do you believe is infallible and why?

Infallibilty is nothing that the scriptures ever say. Even Peter himself scripture says was not infallible. I don’t believe anyone is infallible except for God. I believe that we as one church (all the believer’s) in unison with the intercession of the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture. 1 Timothy says to read and study the word so that you will know the truth. Scripture never suggests it to a hierarchy but to us as individuals. As far as the perpetual virginity of Mary I don’t believe it is a Scriptural teaching although it is a Catholic teaching. Same as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

 

[Little_Mary]

Nella,

Here’s a debate on the subject, scroll down to #475, and download it in MP3 format for a couple of bucks, and you can listen to it on your computer, or iPod.

Catholics will complain that the protestant debater, James White, is a know-nothing, uncharitable, anti-catholic cur, and that Gerry Matatics, a former protestant minister, who at the time of the debate was considered a good Catholic apologist is now a fringe, and somewhat lunatic Catholic worthy of ignoring, but you are an adult who can filter out the howling from Catholics on this thread, and listen for yourself, and make your own decision.

Howling? That’s just too much. Please apologize for your poor choice of words.

 

[Nella]

Howling? That’s just too much. Please apologize for your poor choice of words.

I thought it was quite humerous myself given some of the things said here about Protestants.

 

[sandusky]

thanks for this info.

You’re welcome.