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

[Pons]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm

Just copying it here:

**Jesus “Brothers”

by Mark J. Bonocore**

In the past few years, I’ve been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced the traditional belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, citing as reason the “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord referred to in Sacred Scripture.

Now, while many Protestants regard Mary’s perpetual virginity as a uniquely “Catholic belief,” it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

So, while I myself am a Catholic, I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these “brothers” and “sisters” are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew.

Matthew 13:55 – Jesus at Nazareth

– carpenter’s son

– mother named Mary

– brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas

– sisters “with us”

Matthew 27: 55 – The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 – The Resurrection

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.”

This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.

It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women. But first, let’s turn to Mark.

(cont.)

 

[Pons]

(Cont. from above)

Mark 6:3 – Jesus at Nazareth (possibly the original source)

– “Is he not the carpenter?” (Jesus had taken over the family business)

– “The son of Mary” (Very unusual in a Jewish context, in which a son is the son of the father, not the mother)

– brothers James, JOSE, Judas, and Simon

The same list as in Matt 13:55, with the exception of “Jose” in place of Matthew’s Joseph – really the same name in Hebrew (Yoshef).

– “sisters are here with us”

Both in Matthew’s account, and more clearly here in Mark’s, this phrase seems to suggest that these particular “brothers” of Jesus lived elsewhere. (Could they have been traveling with Jesus as His followers?)

Mark 15:40 – The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.”

Here, Matthew’s “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” reappears as “the mother of …James and of Jose,” corresponding to Mark’s reference to Jesus’ “brothers” James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother – like Jesus’ – happened to be named Mary:

NAZARETH CRUCIFIXION

Matthew: James and Joseph James and Joseph

Mark: James and Jose James and Jose

And so, Mark continues…

Mark 15:47 – Jesus’ burial

“Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.”

Jose corresponds to the one mentioned in Mark 6:3 and 15:40.

Mark 16:1 – The Resurrection

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.”

The same three companions appear again. Here, Mary is called “the mother of James” (a variant of “the mother of Jose” in 15:47). However, there is still no mention, or even a vague implication, that this woman is also the mother of Jesus; but merely a background character like Salome.

(cont.)

 

[Pons]

(cont.)

Luke 24:10 – The Resurrection

“The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...”

Again, the “mother of James,” but not the mother of Jesus. And, like Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus’ mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14).

“Others” (aka, Salome and Suzanna, etc.)

John 19:25 – The Crucifixion

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.”

This mysterious “Mary” appears again; this time called “Mary the wife of Clopas.” If this passage is speaking about three women, rather than four (as it almost certainly is), the comma after “his mother’s sister” may be identifying Clopas’ wife as the sister (or ‘tribal-relative’) of Jesus’ mother. This would explain the gospel writers’ use of the Greek word “adelphos” (as a translation of the Hebrew “ah”), which could mean brother (or sister in the feminine), as well as cousin, nephew, relative, etc. If Clopas’ wife was the sister (i.e., close, tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother, then Clopas’ sons, James and Joseph (Jose), could very well be called Jesus’ “brethren” (i.e., part of His extended tribal family).

This seems to fit, since neither James and Joseph/Jose (nor any of the “brothers”) are EVER called the sons of Joseph.

It is also quite possible that, as John’s gospel so often does, this reference to Mary as “wife of Clopas” is a conscious intention to clear up any questions about the “mother of James and Joseph (Jose)” in the Synoptics – that is, to clearly distinguish her from Jesus’ mother.

CONCLUSION

So, with all this evidence in mind, I hold that:

(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).

(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.

(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).

(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.

But, let’s play devil’s advocate.

(cont.)

 

[Pons]

(cont.)

If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.

And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:

– James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.

– And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)

– And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.

So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.

So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?

Well, if this is the case, then

(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then

– The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)

– The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.

(cont.)

 

[Pons]

(cont.)

Still playing devil’s advocate, I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.

Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.

Therefore, my whole “devil’s advocate” position is undone, and it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.

And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.

So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.

But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”

I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.

Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.

Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!

However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:

JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary

JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.

JUDAS

SIMON

These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related. I look forward to any comments or objections you might care to add.

Gloria Deo!

Mark J. Bonocore

---

That’s it.

 

[mozart-250]

That is your opinion. Please explain why?

Reading comprehension is not a matter of opinion or interprettion. Reading comprehension is an objective skill that is measured, graded, and quantified.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Reading comprehension is not a matter of opinion or interprettion. Reading comprehension is an objective skill that is measured, graded, and quantified.

What it is measured against if not against a pre-formed opinion?

Are you going to explain how my interpretation is incorrect or were you just whistling in the dark?

 

[mozart-250]

What it is measured against if not against a pre-formed opinion?

Are you going to explain how my interpretation is incorrect or were you just whistling in the dark?

Reading comprehension is measured against logic and reason.

What are valid inferences one can gain from reading a text and what is an invalid inferences.

If you remember SAT tests, those taking the test are required to read a passage of text. Then questions are asked concerning these texts as to what are valid and invalid conclusions one could draw from reading these texts.

There is nothing in the texts that you cited that would lead a reader to logically infer that that the objects of these texts are incapable of being wrong in teaching faith and morals.

 

[Ginger2]

The simple answer is that there is no Scripture that supports Mary having no other children. However, there is no Scripture that positively confirms siblings, either.

If you are Catholic, you must believe Jesus had no blood siblings. This is how Catholicism affirms the eternal virginity of Mary.

For me it is a non-issue.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Reading comprehension is measured against logic and reason.

What are valid inferences one can gain from reading a text and what is an invalid inferences.

And who makes that determination?

If you remember SAT tests, those taking the test are required to read a passage of text. Then questions are asked concerning these texts as to what are valid and invalid conclusions one could draw from reading these texts.

There is nothing in the texts that you cited that would lead a reader to logically infer that that the objects of these texts are incapable of being wrong in teaching faith and morals.

And that is your opinion on the matter. I respectfully disagree.

When the Son of God tells His apostles in Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 that it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. Only one conclusion is possible – if the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

When the Son of God promises in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail.

For the Son of God to give Peter and the apostles in Matt. 16:19, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth REQUIRES infallibility.

 

[adrift]

Doesn’t the Bible teach us that Jesus did have siblings

No it doesn’t. When you read scripture, it has to be read with the intent of the author. Words change meanings as well as cultures are different. Today it is hard to imagine being with your parents your whole life not to mention brother sisters and cousins. The way of life back then involved your families and you lived in close proximity.

The word brothers have a broad connotation which has been aptly pointed out. The word until also has been explained well also. What does the bible teach. According to the customs of that time an older brother was respected and looked up to. They never would have talked to Jesus as it is brethren do. The way they speak says that they are older. Jesus providing for Mary shows there are no other children. It has also been pointed out that most of the so called brothers have other mothers mentioned. If you are really looking to the bible than the answer is the bible teaches that Jesus did not have other siblings.

 

[mozart-250]

And who makes that determination?

Well reading comprehension SAT tests are scored by machines who compare the answers with predefined results. The questions are developed by reading comprehension experts who know what valid inferences are and are not.

And that is your opinion on the matter. I respectfully disagree.

When the Son of God tells His apostles in Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 that it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. Only one conclusion is possible – if the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

When the Son of God promises in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail.

For the Son of God to give Peter and the apostles in Matt. 16:19, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth REQUIRES infallibility.

Well you can disagree if you want, that is your right.

But from a reading comprehension perspective they are still invalid inferences. I will cite a very simple example.

Let us start with the assertion that “Jim is over 10 years old”. A test might ask what are valid inferences you might make from this statement.
A. Jim is not 20 years old
B. Jim is over 50 years old
C. Jim is not 2 years old

The answer to this question is “C”. While it might be true that Jim is not 20 years old and that he is over 50 years old, we don’t know that from the text. The text is ambiguous as to the precise age of Jim.

Now you might believe that Jim is over 50 years old based on evidence outside of the text. That is irrelevant. The issue is what inferences can be gleaned from the text.

Now let us apply this same principle to one of the texts that are
cited:

When the Son of God promises in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail.

Matthew 16:18 works for me. If there are other conclusions that can logically be reached from reading this text, then you do not have a valid inference.

As it reads, this text has an ambiguous construct “gates of Hell” that is undefined within the text and the verb “prevail” which is indicative of a final status of vicatory in normal English usage. While one can not eliminate the possibility that what you describe is in fact the case (remember that Jim could be over 50 years old) nobody knows from reading this text whether in fact teaching error means that the gates of Hell have prevailed. The text is ambiguous on that point.

Now you may believe that is in fact the case based on other reasons outside of this text (mainly that is what your denomination teaches). That is your right. This text certainly does not eliminate that possibility. But from a reading comprehension perspective, you can not come to this conclusion simply from reading the text cited because the text is in fact ambiguous on this point.

But anyway, this is sort of off-topic to the original point.

 

[Zooey]

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

Oh, http://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gifthis reminds me of one of my cousins. She is a great cousin, but she is a fundamentalist Baptist, & she is always telling me to “just take the Bible literally”, and then when I point out something that I take literally (& she doesn’t), she goes, “Oh, well, that isn’t meant to be taken literally. That’s a figure of speech!”…because, you see, it doesn’t support what she believes!!http://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gif

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.

For future reference:http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

 

[sandusky]

Pons:

Now, while many Protestants regard Mary’s perpetual virginity as a uniquely “Catholic belief,” it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

The reformers, at that time, still held to some traditions of the RCC, that had yet to be investigated by the reformation in its future.

What the reformers wrote, and taught, as with the ECFs, is not scripture, and therefore, their work is not binding on God’s people; their writings, and teachings must be examined in the light of the final authority—God’s revealed Word.

Max Thurian, as well, must held to the same standard; he is somewhat controversial, within conservative Catholicism, as SSPXasia points out. (Perhaps, at this time, that’s been resolved; I don’t know).

Back to the topic, what you have presented is a skeletal outline of a theory, in which you’ve made a number of assertions, assumptions, and speculations; therefore, there’s not much for me to comment on; if you’ve written something more detailed, and fleshed out, you can direct me to it.

But, I’ll make a comment concerning Acts 1:14, which you mentioned.

In v13, Luke identifies 12 men, by name, and continues in v14 saying:**
These [the ones named in v13]…along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.**
Luke makes a clear distinction between “these” (the 12 named in v13), the women, Mary, and ”His brothers” in v14; obviously, those mentioned in v13 are not included in the those Luke refers to as ”His brothers.”

I assume that you understand “His brothers,” in this instance, to be Jesus’ “extended tribal-family group,” or “friends,” and not “siblings?” If so, why is that?

There are Greek words for various families members, as has been pointed out, but it must also be pointed out that there are various Greek words used to describe “friends,” as well.

Which brings me to this e-mail, posted here (scroll down to entry at date 8/14)., at aomin.orgear Friend of Catholic Answers:

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Assumption, best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as “the Marian dogma that isn’t mentioned in Scripture.” We can concede that point—it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption—**while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption.**It seems to me, that is the basis of all of Marian doctrines peculiar to your church: “the antiquity of the belief…nothing in scripture contradicts [them].”

My explanation of what you’re doing is taking the presupposition of the perpetual virginity of Mary to Scripture in a quest for scripture’s support of the dogma; IOW, you are reasoning to scripture, rather than, from scripture. Why is that?

I’ll offer an answer: as I said earlier on this thread, pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail with the Catholic.

I’ll post this verse from Mark again…**Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James…**…and, with respect to that verse, re-ask these questions:

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well reading comprehension SAT tests are scored by machines who compare the answers with predefined results. The questions are developed by reading comprehension experts who know what valid inferences are and are not.

They KNOW? HOW do they “know”? They draw conclusions based on THEIR interpretation of the matter. My sister-in-law is a doctor who helps create certification tests for the state of Florida. She has told us that numerous times during these sessions there is disagreement among the professionals there as to what the correct answer is. The bottonline is that people express their OPINION based on their INTERPRETATION of the matter being presented.

Well you can disagree if you want, that is your right.

And I am exercising that right just as you are exercising your right to disagree with me.

But from a reading comprehension perspective they are still invalid inferences.

According to YOUR opinion based on YOUR interpretation. Others disagree.

I will cite a very simple example.

Let us start with the assertion that “Jim is over 10 years old”. A test might ask what are valid inferences you might make from this statement.
A. Jim is not 20 years old
B. Jim is over 50 years old
C. Jim is not 2 years old

The answer to this question is “C”. While it might be true that Jim is not 20 years old and that he is over 50 years old, we don’t know that from the text. The text is ambiguous as to the precise age of Jim.

Now you might believe that Jim is over 50 years old based on evidence outside of the text. That is irrelevant. The issue is what inferences can be gleaned from the text.

Now let us apply this same principle to one of the texts that are
cited:

Matthew 16:18 works for me. If there are other conclusions that can logically be reached from reading this text, then you do not have a valid inference.

As it reads, this text has an ambiguous construct “gates of Hell” that is undefined within the text and the verb “prevail” which is indicative of a final status of vicatory in normal English usage. While one can not eliminate the possibility that what you describe is in fact the case (remember that Jim could be over 50 years old) nobody knows from reading this text whether in fact teaching error means that the gates of Hell have prevailed. The text is ambiguous on that point.

Now you may believe that is in fact the case based on other reasons outside of this text (mainly that is what your denomination teaches). That is your right. This text certainly does not eliminate that possibility. But from a reading comprehension perspective, you can not come to this conclusion simply from reading the text cited because the text is in fact ambiguous on this point.

But anyway, this is sort of off-topic to the original point.

The problem rests with the fact that you are ignorant of the figurative language used by the scripture writers and try to apply the “normal English usage” to it. That can not be done. When music was sold on records, the term “you sound like a broken record” was a popular saying to indicate that somebody was repeating the same thing over and over again. That saying has less meaning now and would have an entirely different meaning prior to the invention of the record.

You have taken text and classified it as being “undefined” and “ambiguous” when nothing could be further from the truth – the text is very clear in the culture and language that it was written in and written for. By making this error, you have formulated an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The reformers, at that time, still held to some traditions of the RCC, that had yet to be investigated by the reformation in its future.

That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that they were in rebellion against the true church of Christ and rejected the Word of God which commands us to hold fast to the ttraditions and teachings that were handing to us.

What the reformers wrote, and taught, as with the ECFs, is not scripture, and therefore, their work is not binding on God’s people; their writings, and teachings must be examined in the light of the final authority—God’s revealed Word.

And why does it matter if it’s scripture or not? Scripture itself commands us to obey the ORAL teachings that are handed down to us. Failure to do is is a failure to obey scripture – which, you just said, IS binding on us.

Max Thurian, as well, must held to the same standard; he is somewhat controversial, within conservative Catholicism, as SSPXasia points out. (Perhaps, at this time, that’s been resolved; I don’t know).

Back to the topic, what you have presented is a skeletal outline of a theory, in which you’ve made a number of assertions, assumptions, and speculations; therefore, there’s not much for me to comment on; if you’ve written something more detailed, and fleshed out, you can direct me to it.

But, I’ll make a comment concerning Acts 1:14, which you mentioned.

In v13, Luke identifies 12 men, by name, and continues in v14 saying:

These [the ones named in v13]…along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Luke makes a clear distinction between “these” (the 12 named in v13), the women, Mary, and ”His brothers” in v14; obviously, those mentioned in v13 are not included in the those Luke refers to as ”His brothers.”

I assume that you understand “His brothers,” in this instance, to be Jesus’ “extended tribal-family group,” or “friends,” and not “siblings?” If so, why is that?

Because it would have been impossible for Mary to have had 80-90 children. As I pointed out earlier, a company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! If “brother” does NOT sibling in this case, then it stands to reason that it does not mean sibling in other cases either.

There are Greek words for various families members, as has been pointed out, but it must also be pointed out that there are various Greek words used to describe “friends,” as well.

Exactly! And from the previous passage it is clear that “brother” and “friend” were used inter-changeable or are you going to argue that Mary gave birth to 80-90 children?

Which brings me to this e-mail, posted here (scroll down to entry at date 8/14)., at aomin.org:

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Assumption, best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as "the Marian dogma that isn't mentioned in Scripture." We can concede that point—it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption—while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption.

It seems to me, that is the basis of all of Marian doctrines peculiar to your church: “the antiquity of the belief…nothing in scripture contradicts [them].”

My explanation of what you’re doing is taking the presupposition of the perpetual virginity of Mary to Scripture in a quest for scripture’s support of the dogma; IOW, you are reasoning to scripture, rather than, from scripture. Why is that?

I’ll offer an answer: as I said earlier on this thread, pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail with the Catholic.

I’ll post this verse from Mark again…

Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James...

…and, with respect to that verse, re-ask these questions:

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

Why not Jesus, because if Jesus had other brothers, it would have been improper Jewish protocol for Jesus to turn over the care of Mary to John. That duty would have fallen on Jesus’s brothers if He had any.

 

[VWcrazy]

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

Yes, it doesn’t teach that.

 

[sandusky]

Sir Knight:

That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that they were in rebellion against the true church of Christ and rejected the Word of God which commands us to hold fast to the ttraditions and teachings that were handing to us.

That would be the RCC way of looking at it; correct?
Sir Knight:

And why does it matter if it’s scripture or not?

Because Catholics parade out the reformers when it is convenient for them to do so, in the mistaken belief that the writings, and teachings of the reformers are binding upon God’s people.
Sir Knight:

Because it would have been impossible for Mary to have had 80-90 children. As I pointed out earlier, a company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! If “brother” does NOT sibling in this case, then it stands to reason that it does not mean sibling in other cases either.

Exactly! And from the previous passage it is clear that “brother” and “friend” were used inter-changeable or are you going to argue that Mary gave birth to 80-90 children?

Sir K, you are not dealing with vv13, 14; your desire is to jump ahead to v15, and lump everyone mentioned into the “those days,” or the “this or that time,” with which v15 opens.

The time of v15 is somewhere within a 10 period of time; we are not told on what day in that 10 day period this meeting ocurred.**Acts 1:15

At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,**At whatever time Peter addressed the group, both the time, and the group are unspecified, except that in v15, he addresses the group as “Men, brothers, or brethren;” the other 11, the women, Mary, and His brothers, are not specifically mentioned, as they were in vv13,14.

D.A. Carson, in his New Bible Commentary, 21st Century, makes this comment on v15:The number a hundred and twenty here is more than just a round number. This is the smallest number in Jewish tradition for a population that could have its own ‘council’. There was a tradition that each judge should rule or represent at least ten members. It may be, therefore, that Luke is suggesting the young church was already a community in its own right and that a twelfth ‘leader’ was required.IOW, the church, based upon the 120, could have been at least 1200 strong, at that time.

Returning to vv13,14, if you are insisting that the ”His brothers” in v14, means ”brothers in Christ,", then why is Luke not including those specifically named in v13, as “His brothers?”

IOW, in the phrasing of v14, isn’t Luke saying, in esssence, that those mentioned in v13 are
not “His brothers?” It seems important to Luke to make that distinction; wouldn’t you agree?

In your opinion, why doesn’t Luke refer to “His brothers,” in v14 as His “cousins, kinsmen, friends,” with the specific Greek word for those relationships instead of seemingly confusing
the matter?
Sir Knight:

Why not Jesus, because if Jesus had other brothers, it would have been improper Jewish protocol for Jesus to turn over the care of Mary to John. That duty would have fallen on Jesus’s brothers if He had any.

I see; sigh—

 

[mozart-250]

The problem rests with the fact that you are ignorant of the figurative language used by the scripture writers and try to apply the “normal English usage” to it. That can not be done. When music was sold on records, the term “you sound like a broken record” was a popular saying to indicate that somebody was repeating the same thing over and over again. That saying has less meaning now and would have an entirely different meaning prior to the invention of the record.

You have taken text and classified it as being “undefined” and “ambiguous” when nothing could be further from the truth – the text is very clear in the culture and language that it was written in and written for. By making this error, you have formulated an incorrect conclusion.

Yes, it is possible that this text would not be ambiguous to its intended audience at the time it was written. But we do not know this to be the case. Perhaps the author was being intentionally ambiguous to some extent. Or perhaps (most likely) the author just was not addressing the questions that we are asking about the text 2000 or so years after the fact.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that neither you nor I were around at the time the text was written. Therefore, the only way this text could be clear to us is if historical experts are in agreement that the meaning of this text was clear to its original audience and can tell us authoritatively what the meaning of this text is.

As you well know, historical experts disagree on what the precise meaning of the text of Matthew 16:18 is. Therefore, unless you want to arbitrarily pick your expert out of the hat, the meaning of this text remains ambiguous.

 

[Pons]

By just looking at all the different women called Mary, I believe it’s clear that Jesus had no biological brothers. I copied and pasted a whole article some pages back…

Who else could “James and Joseph” the sons of “the other Mary” could have been but the “brothers of the Lord” of those names? Joseph’s name differs in Mark (“Joses”) but the same combination (paired with James) is found there, in “Jesus and family” and crucifixion accounts.

Given that this Mary is minor enough to just be called “the other” one (compared to Mary Magdalene), and that she is the “wife of Clopas” and “Jesus’s mother’s sister” by harmonizing John with the Synoptics, how can James and Joseph be literally brothers? And if these two, always mentioned first (implying seniority and/or closer kinship), aren’t, how can the rest be?

If one believes Mary (mother of Jesus) is also Mary (mother of James and Joseph), who then is Mary (wife of Clopas)? Why would Gospel writers identify Jesus’s mother by other, less important people during the crucifixion accounts? Mary (wife of Clopas) must be the “other”, less/least important/prominent Mary.

Handy chart: homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

English just isn’t Aramaic/Hebrew, nor even Koine Greek…