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

[Edward62]

No, Jesus absolutely did not have siblings. When he addresses people as “brother”, it is a friendly greeting… a term of endearment demonstrating their closeness. Kind of like the KofC are a fraternal order… they’re not really brothers but they are that close. It can also be taken as “brother in Christ”.

But yeah… Blessed Mary, ever virgin? That means she was always a virgin… thus no kids.

 

[sandusky]

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/mis…_brothers.html

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

Benefit of the doubt, Mark, I went back through your outline, and still find it to be assertions, assumptions, and speculations.

Your clinging to tradition, and dogmatic declarations concerning Mary blinds you to the plain meaning of the text.

**We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides—Ignatius of Loyola


Toss the Aramaic from your list, the NT is exclusively Greek.

 

[YADA]

I went back through your outline, and still find it to be assertions, assumptions, and speculations.

Sandusky, your dismissal of Pons is telling…I do not think that it is the catholic’s here who are

clinging to tradition, and dogmatic declarations concerning Mary blinds you to the plain meaning of the text.

It is you who are clinging to new inovative interpretations…that is why you have to dismiss the beliefs of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli as well as the teachings of the church and the testimony of the early church fathers.

 

[sandusky]

YADA:

Sandusky, your dismissal of Pons is telling…I do not think that it is the catholic’s here who are

It is you who are clinging to new inovative interpretations…that is why you have to dismiss the beliefs of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli as well as the teachings of the church and the testimony of the early church fathers.

Of course you don’t think it’s Catholics who cling to tradition, and must yield to binding dogmatic declarations which their authority—the church—has declared; YADA, YADA, YADA do even hear what you are saying? At least admit that to remain a true Catholic, you must yield yourself, body and soul, to the church, and its dogmatic teachings—at least be honest about that, as Ignatius of Loyola was honest about that.

My dismissal of Pons is not difficult. It is easy because it is the declarations of your church, concerning Mary, that drive Pons’ hermeneutic; IOW, Pons can come to no other conclusion, but that, “brothers and sisters” with regard to the Lord cannot mean “brothers and sisters” in the natural sense; the church doesn’t care how you arrive at that conclusion, it only demands that you must.

The teachings of all of those who purport to be teachers of divine truth are to be examined against the teachings of God’s word—where their teaching does not line up with that word, that teaching should be rejected.

If the dogmatic declarations of the RCC were that Mary had other children, then, brothers and sisters could mean to you what they naturally mean.

I’ll again post this verse from Mark for you, YADA… **Mark 3:17

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

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Of course you don’t think it’s Catholics who cling to tradition, and must yield to binding dogmatic declarations which their authority—the church—has declared; YADA, YADA, YADA do even hear what you are saying? At least admit that to remain a true Catholic, you must yield yourself, body and soul, to the church, and its dogmatic teachings—at least be honest about that, as Ignatius of Loyola was honest about that.

Let really be honest…

Christ is the head of the Church. The Church is Christ’s continued persents here on earth. All salvation come thru the Church ie Christ.

To follow the words, commands and teachings of Christ is to be Catholic. To protest those words, commands and teachings in one form or another that come to us thru the Christ’s presents on earth is protestant. It’s an authority question, Do you trust your own authority (protestant), or do you trust the God given authority on earth as set up by Christ (Catholic)

By defination Catholic’s do follow the Church which is the bride of Christ, the two are one. All others follow what they think and feel is Christ.

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

Christ is the head of the Church. The Church is Christ’s continued persents here on earth. All salvation come thru the Church ie Christ.

That’s an incorrect understanding of your church’s doctrine, Sean; as your catechism, para 1260 states:“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.What other misunderstandings concerning your church, and the word of God could you have?
Sean Boyle:

To follow the words, commands and teachings of Christ is to be Catholic. To protest those words, commands and teachings in one form or another that come to us thru the Christ’s presents on earth is protestant. It’s an authority question, Do you trust your own authority (protestant), or do you trust the God given authority on earth as set up by Christ (Catholic)

One follows Christ because one hears His voice, and knows Him (Jn 10:27); a statement made, by Christ, before the foundation of the Church, and true of all OT saints, living before the church, and saved from the hearing of that same voice—the voice of authority recorded in the Gospels.
Sean Boyle:

By defination Catholic’s do follow the Church which is the bride of Christ, the two are one. All others follow what they think and feel is Christ.

I grant that Catholics do follow a church.

 

[Pons]

First, I’m not Mark (Bonocore, the apologist)…

Mark 3:17
…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James……and, with respect to that verse, re-ask these questions of you, YADA:

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

Simple… the Catholic and Orthodox Churches rely on tradition to recognize who literally has brothers and who doesn’t.

1 Peter 5:13 (New International Version):

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

Zebedee has sons. Now Peter calls one “Mark” his son. This Mark is Paul’s disciple Mark. Now does anyone really believe that Mark is literally Peter’s son?

If the Greek term for “son”, as used, may have a wider meaning than “male offspring”, why not “brother”?

And the “James and Joseph” / “James and Jose” was passed over… given that a James is a “brother of the Lord” and a James is mentioned in Crucifixion/Resurrection accounts, and both of them have a brother called Joseph in Matthew and Jose in Mark (just different renderings of the same name, I know; “Joset” in other translations), they’re probably the same. True, their mother is also named Mary, but by comparing the gospels, one could say their Mary isn’t Jesus’s mother, but her “sister” (close relative?)…

Doesn’t this thread belong in Apologetics anyway? Isn’t this subforum for discussing Islam, Buddhism, New Age beliefs, etc.?

 

[Pons]

And “brother” does have a wider meaning in the NT, as others will already have said - unless one believes Jesus literally had 120 brothers:

Acts 1:12-15 (New International Version)

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

In those days Peter stood up among the believers** (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)

Footnote: b. Acts 1:15 Greek: “brothers”**

Translations from biblegateway.com. Some versions do have “brothers” and “brethren” in place of “believers” or “disciples”.

So passages can’t always be said to have “plain meanings”. I haven’t even brought up local customs/culture yet, such as the use of circumlocutions for precise designations, bypassed by using “brother”, “sister”, etc. more loosely…

 

[sandusky]

Pons:

First, I’m not Mark (Bonocore, the apologist)…

I didn’t think so, but wasn’t sure; thanks for clearing that up; you might want to make a clear disclaimer at the very beginning of, or at the very end of things that you post from others.

Pons:

Simple… the Catholic and Orthodox Churches rely on tradition to recognize who literally has brothers and who doesn’t.

Thank you, Pons, for that very honest answer.

As I stated earlier, due to dogmatic definitions by the RCC, based solely upon tradition and nothing else, Catholics must believe that Jesus had no half-siblings from Mary and Joseph.

Pons:

Zebedee has sons. Now Peter calls one “Mark” his son. This Mark is Paul’s disciple Mark. Now does anyone really believe that Mark is literally Peter’s son?

If the Greek term for “son”, as used, may have a wider meaning than “male offspring”, why not “brother”? And the “James and Joseph” / “James and Jose” thing isn’t addressed…

Context determines the final meaning of any word in question—context.

Pons:

And “brother” does have a wider meaning in the NT, as others will already have said - unless one believes Jesus literally had 120 brothers:

Translations from biblegateway.com. Some versions do have “brothers” and “brethren” in place of “believers” or “disciples”.

Again—CONTEXT.

I discussed this passage (Acts 1:13-15) in response to Sir Knight a few days/pages ago.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

That’s an incorrect understanding of your church’s doctrine, Sean; as your catechism, para 1260 states:“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.Which part? I’d like to help you resolve this misunderstanding What other misunderstandings concerning your church, and the word of God could you have? Using the Catechism. Great!! it will only be a matter of time before stepping away from man made traditions.

One follows Christ because one hears His voice, and knows Him (Jn 10:27); a statement made, by Christ, before the foundation of the Church, and true of all OT saints, living before the church, and saved from the hearing of that same voice—the voice of authority recorded in the Gospels. Christ’s voice is the Church. Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. A building could not exist without one in those times. The Catholic Church is the same Church that recorded the God breathed scriptures. The Catholic Church is the living church and a living faith.

I grant that Catholics do follow a church. You grant? Does that make your opinions seem more important.

 

[Pons]

based solely upon tradition and nothing else, Catholics must believe that Jesus had no half-siblings from Mary and Joseph.

I don’t believe the doctrines were based as you put it, “solely upon tradition.” “James and Joseph/Jose/Joses/Joset” being sons of another, minor Mary is enough to question that Jesus had siblings (for me). It’s right there in the text…

Besides, oral tradition predated the Scriptures and the entire Bible…

Correcting myself:

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches rely on scripture and tradition *for things worth knowing, like * who literally has brothers and who doesn’t.

Some Catholic/Orthodox traditions are obviously weighty (i.e. essential), like the perpetual virginity (which may be interpreted to have Scriptural basis, or at least, isn’t contradicted by it as many have said); others, like “John the Baptist was born without original sin”, are less important and aren’t held by all.

Context determines the final meaning of any word in question—context.

I agree… that’s why one needs to take Jewish culture (i.e. ways of speaking) into account.

 

[Peregrino]

My dismissal of Pons is not difficult. It is easy because it is the declarations of your church, concerning Mary, that drive Pons’ hermeneutic; IOW, Pons can come to no other conclusion, but that, “brothers and sisters” with regard to the Lord cannot mean “brothers and sisters” in the natural sense; the church doesn’t care how you arrive at that conclusion, it only demands that you must…If the dogmatic declarations of the RCC were that Mary had other children, then, brothers and sisters could mean to you what they naturally mean.

I have to agree with this. There is not enough evidence to conclude that Jesus did not have siblings. There may be evidence that allows one to infer that the statements about Jesus’ siblings may actually mean something different, but these inferences go against the text. If the Church were honest, it would say something like “there is evidence to suggest that Jesus did not have siblings, but it cannot be definitively said that he did not have siblings.” What would cause someone to question the text in the first place? This is why I think that Sandusky is on target here. Catholic dogma stands in opposition to the written word of the text. Personally, I don’t think that Mary’s deserved position of respect and veneration is at all diminshed if she had other children.

Mark 3:17

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

---

James…

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

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

Nice point.

 

[Pons]

the church doesn’t care how you arrive at that conclusion, it only demands that you must.

It cares - why would church fathers dispute over half-brother/stepbrother theories?

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

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

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

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

James and John are the sons of Zebedee.

Is Mark the son of Peter? Nobody really believes that. Why? His generation of Christians knew he wasn’t, and passed it down to future generations. The same goes for Jesus’s brothers, I reckon.

 

[Pons]

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

Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

Where is it said that Jesus’s brothers were also sons of Jesus’ mother? Jesus is the “son of Mary”. Yes, James’ mother is also named Mary, but that’s elsewhere - she’s different, too minor, as she’s only mentioned after Mary Magdalene in the Synoptics, whereas in John Jesus’ mother is mentioned before Mary Magdalene and another Mary - which Catholics believe is James’ mother and Jesus’ mother’s “sister”…

Quoting another apologist, Dave Armstrong… (haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/112976670661546458/#85169, also here: socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/replies-to-protestants-alleged.html)

If you are basing your case on the use of the word translated “brothers” in English (adelphos) … you are operating on this principle of sola Scriptura, which holds (generally-speaking) that everything should be explicit in the Bible. But where is that principle itself taught in Scripture?

In other words, we [believe] a strong Tradition which was the consensus until 100-200 years or so ago, among all Christians, and which has significant implicit scriptural support.

 

[Pons]

There is not enough evidence to conclude that Jesus did not have siblings.

The RCC and EO believe there is…

There may be evidence that allows one to infer that the statements about Jesus’ siblings may actually mean something different,

See above…

but these inferences go against the text.

The RCC and EO don’t believe that…

Your clinging to tradition, and dogmatic declarations concerning Mary blinds you to the plain meaning of the text.

I believe it’s not plain as day, since James and Joseph are children of a different Mary, from comparing the texts…

What would cause someone to question the text in the first place?

Well, as everyone then understood “brothers” could be and was used non-literally, no one questioned the text; it wasn’t an issue.

 

[sandusky]

Pons:

To quote Dave Armstrong, another apologist…

Dave Armstrong’s apologetic of attacking Sola Scriptura to defend a Catholic position has become a standard Catholic apologetic method; spend some time reading various threads.

It doesn’t matter what the subject of an argument may be, the instant the Catholic realizes that the last leg of his argument is about to be kicked out from underneath him, he attacks sola scriptura; from there, he will generally move onto his version of how we got the canon; namely, the apostles were Catholics; therefore Catholics wrote the bible, blah, blah, blah.

I’m sympathetic toward your position, and the things that you must defend as a Catholic; nevertheless, you chose it.

 

[Peregrino]

Well, as everyone then understood “brothers” could be and was used non-literally, no one questioned the text; it wasn’t an issue.

That’s rather an optimistic outlook.

 

[Pons]

the instant the Catholic realizes that the last leg of his argument is about to be kicked out from underneath him,

Hey, I wasn’t at that stage… even without taking tradition vs. sola Scriptura into account, I believe signs which support the RCC/EO position/s are there in the text.

Rephrasing "Well, as everyone then understood… " statement::

How could the teaching exist if “brothers” was - back then - understood only literally? Yes, there’s no verse that runs, “and Jesus was Mary’s only child” or something like that, but Catholics/Orthodox believe there are enough indications in the text to assume thus. So Oral tradition defines and makes explicit what’s in the text (for me/Catholics anyway).

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

That would be the biblical way to look at it for scripture commands us to obey our church leaders.

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.

I never heard of any Catholics say that the teachings of reformers are binding on God’s people. In fact, I’ve heard the exact opposite.

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?

Wouldn’t you agree that in this case the author uses “breathen” to mean something other than a sibling? Then why is it so hard to accept that in other passages “brother” also means something other than a sibling?

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?

EXACTLY my point – brother is used inter-changeably with cousin, friend & kinsmen.

I see; sigh—

I’m glad that we are finally getting somewhere.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Isn’t it amazing that there was no confusion as to what those passages meant during the first 1500+ years of Christianity?

Wouldn’t you agree that those who learned directly from the Apostles or from someone who learned from the apostles would have a better grasp of the subject than someone reading their writings centuries later?