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

[sandusky]

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.

Nice point.

Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[Bible_Student]

<<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 >>

And by your use of “brother,” do you mean to imply we have the same biological mother?

I don’t think so.

Aye, so I did but tis’ context, context, context that infers my meaning as well as healthy Biblical exegesis!

Hi again bpBasilphx

No, sorry but I did not mean bio brother but more significantly my brother in the Lord Jesus and also in the regeneration sense on the day of the Lord; for I surmised that you belong to Christ, which is my hope and assumption concerning you. And if so then we truly are real brothers, being grafted into the tree by the precious blood of Jesus. This is the brotherhood our Lord Himself spoke of when He said;

Jesus’ Mother and His brothers send for Him
Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; and Luke 8:19-21)
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

I was using the same context of ‘brother’ in my message as the Lord did in His. I actually do for anyone that I am persuaded belongs to Christ, unless of course they are my sisters in the Lord. Bottom line with me, if we belong to Christ, then I perceive we are truly brothers in an even greater sense relative to the truth of God. One reason, among others, that I believe Christians should get along is that like it or not we’re stuck with each other for eternity.

But, as to Jesus’ brothers (not cousins) the implication in the following passage is that His brother’s disbelieved. So Jesus’ would not have been calling them brothers in the same sense as I just called you brother. Of course this would certainly change after the resurrection; James being the head of the church at Jerusalem being martyred for the faith a few years before the Romans razed it to the ground.

The Gospel of John Chapter 7
Jesus’ brothers appear to disbelieve in Him
1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
6 Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.

Again this is all historical context and probably doesn’t matter very much in terms of the faith that Christ and His apostles delivered unto us. Hence I believe this is a very small matter and don’t wish to spend much time debating what I believe is a really a small point of history. Personally, I would not care if the Bible implied the exact opposite as it really doesn’t alter the Gospel one iota. That said, I’ll stick with what I believe to be the Biblical evidence for this, again which would seem to favor that these were Jesus’ brothers, either in the blood sense or the family sense.

May God Bless, Pat

 

[Sir_Knight]

***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

Let’s see … the bible commands us to obey our church leaders and hold fast not only to the writtne but ALSO to the ORAL teachings that are handed down to us.

Let’s NOT do that but still CLAIM to follow the bible http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Doesn’t God’s word command us to obey the oral teachings handed down to us? Isn’t the church the fountain of truth? No such claim is made about the bible.

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?

Because it would have been extremely disrespectful for a devout Jew (which Jesus was) to commit the care of His mother in John 19:26-27 to a friend if he had brothers.

 

[sandusky]

Pons:

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.

Forgive me, Pons, I wasn’t inferring that you were at that stage; I made the comment with regard to that as an apologetic when the arguments have run out.

Pons:

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

How could the teaching exist if “brothers” was - back then - understood only literally?

I stand ready to be corrected, but I believe the overarching teaching of the CC on the doctrines pertaining to Mary are basically that they are not “necessary, but fitting.” IOW, God has the power to make, and keep Mary sinless, to keep her a perpetual virgin, to assume her into heaven, etc.; therefore; because He could do it, He should do it, and the Church has declared that He has done it.

Pons:

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).

But there are verses that speak of His mother, and His brothers, and His sisters.**John 2:12

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.**In what way in that verse, are His disciples not ***His brothers?*****Galatians 1:18-19

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.**In what way is the apostle James the Lord’s brother (v19), that the apostle Peter isn’t the
Lord’s brother (v18)?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

And we follow Christ by accepting those that He sent …

Luke 10:16 = He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

… and by rejecting them, we reject Christ. It is hypocritical to say that we hear & follow Christ but refuse to obey and follow those that He sent.

I grant that Catholics do follow a church.

As should ALL followers of Christ since that is what the bible commands us to do.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Excuse me but exactly where did the bible come from? It wasn’t brought down from heaven by an angel nor was it given to someone on a mountaintop. The bible was assembled by the Catholic Church in the late fourth century. It was the Catholic Church that decided what was to be included and what was to be excluded. Thus, they have authority OVER the bible.

If you accept the bible as the Word of God, then you HAVE TO accept the authority of the Church over the Bible and if you reject the authority of the Church over the bible, then what proof do you have that the books in the bible are really the Word of God? Why is Matthew included and Thomas excluded and Mark included? Etc.?

You can’t have it both ways. If you reject the authority of the Church over the bible, then you need to prove that the bible is the Word of God.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But there are verses that speak of His mother, and His brothers, and His sisters.John 2:12

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.In what way in that verse, are His disciples not ***His brothers?***Galatians 1:18-19

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.In what way is the apostle James the Lord’s brother (v19), that the apostle Peter isn’t the
Lord’s brother (v18)?

And what happened to these “brothers” in John 19:26-27 causing Jesus to turn over the care of His Mother to a friend? An unthinkable act for Jesus to commit if He has actual brothers!

 

[Scottgun]

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.

Baloney. Catholics attack it because non-Catholics keep appealing to it, so it is perfectly fair. Sola Scriptura is like a helicopter without a rear-stabalizing rotor–it just whirls round and round, where it stops nobody knows–so we get Martin Luther and John Calvin and several other reformers believing in perpetual virginity, then we get the modern fad of disbelieving it.

 

[Pons]

For John - I think his relatives aren’t “disciples” because they (except his mother, if you believe that) didn’t believe in him at that point, and probably only “converted” after he rose from the dead. I’m not sure where it’s said, but Jesus appeared to James, and Gnostic texts concur. :whacky:

For Paul - some Catholics believe James the brother of the Lord is the Apostle James son of Alphaeus, with Alphaeus equated to Cleopas (husband of Mary) in John. The Orthodox say they’re different, probably because of the above (their unbelief). Some Catholics (including myself) agree. There isn’t a definitive Catholic stance on this point anyway (to the best of my knowledge), so this is fine. Paul used the term “apostle” more loosely; he called himself and at least Barnabas “apostles” as well and they weren’t part of the 12. Where is Peter said to be the Lord’s brother too?

Excuse me but exactly where did the bible come from? It wasn’t brought down from heaven by an angel nor was it given to someone on a mountaintop. The bible was assembled by the Catholic Church in the late fourth century. It was the Catholic Church that decided what was to be included and what was to be excluded. Thus, they have authority OVER the bible.

“The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not God.…”

Well, that Brown dude got it half right (or three-fourths, since God wrote the Bible through man)… But does any Christian church really believe in Brown’s terms? Pardon my ignorance…

 

[Pons]

You just pointed it our right there. What tells you that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth? SCRIPTURE tells you! You just said it and I rest my case.

Sorry if this is rather far back, but… the Church tells you through scripture it’s the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[sandusky]

Scottgun:

Baloney. Catholics attack it because non-Catholics keep appealing to it, so it is perfectly fair. Sola Scriptura is like a helicopter without a rear-stabalizing rotor–it just whirls round and round, where it stops nobody knows—

Protestants appeal to it because Catholics appeal to infallibly defined traditions from a self-proclaimed infallible source; talk about circular reasoning.

Scottgun:

so we get Martin Luther and John Calvin and several other reformers believing in perpetual virginity, then we get the modern fad of disbelieving it.

That is a strawman; simply because your church binds your conscience to its teachings, and the teachings of the ECFs, doesn’t mean the that I am bound to the teachings of Luther,
and Calvin. Catholics claim that their doctrines develop; is that another infallibly exclusive claim?

You are obviously enamored with Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings on the Virgin Mary, why do you reject their other teachings? :ehh:

Why is it OK for you to reject some of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but it’s not OK for me to do the same? :ehh:

 

[Scottgun]

You are obviously enamored with Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings on the Virgin Mary, why do you reject their other teachings? :ehh:

So if they can be wrong on the perpetual virginity, why can’t they be wrong on sola scriptura?

Why is it OK for you to reject some of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but it’s not OK for me to do the same? :ehh:

Because of the rank dorkiness of such an approach. There are no NEW arguments here. ML and JC handled the very same objections to the teaching. Nothing is different. Just that, like the Soviet Union, certain party members have fallen out of favor to make room for the new flavor of the month interpretation.

 

[sandusky]

Scottgun:

So if they can be wrong on the perpetual virginity, why can’t they be wrong on sola scriptura?

If they are right on perpetual virginity, why can’t they be right on justification, and the lack of authority of the papacy, etc.?

Scottgun:

Because of the rank dorkiness of such an approach. There are no NEW arguments here. ML and JC handled the very same objections to the teaching. Nothing is different. Just that, like the Soviet Union, certain party members have fallen out of favor to make room for the new flavor of the month interpretation.

That’s not what I asked.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Protestants appeal to it because Catholics appeal to infallibly defined traditions from a self-proclaimed infallible source; talk about circular reasoning.

Protestants refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic church but accept the bible as the Word of God even though it was assembled through the authority of the Catholic Church – talk about illogical reasoning!

That is a strawman; simply because your church binds your conscience to its teachings, and the teachings of the ECFs, doesn’t mean the that I am bound to the teachings of Luther,
and Calvin. Catholics claim that their doctrines develop; is that another infallibly exclusive claim?

The church established by the Son of God binds all believers to it’s teachings. Scripture is very clear on this point – those that reject those that Christ sent, reject Christ Himself.

You are obviously enamored with Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings on the Virgin Mary, why do you reject their other teachings? :ehh:

Because they are not consistent with official church doctrine.

Why is it OK for you to reject some of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but it’s not OK for me to do the same? :ehh:

Because you reject the points that he got right and accept the parts that he got wrong.

 

[YADA]

I have a friend from India [Idia - the country with about 500 languages]. In his mother tongue [even today] they have no specific name for brother. A brother is any male relative - your father’s [or mother’s] brother - an uncle, a biological brother, a cousin, a male relative by marriage, adoption or other legally acguired male relative. It is even used to refer to a male compatriot from the same village [or clan] that is not related by blood or marriage. In fact, this is common culturally today as is was in the time of Jesus and before. Tribal [or clan] cultures share this in common [at least the majority do].

Scripture makes no references to other chilldren of Mary [the mother of Jesus] and as such, scripture makes no claim to brothers [or sisters] of Jesus.

Jesus, is called the Son of Joseph…if we must take scripture literally on this point then Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God and the Lord of All…he would be a fraud…

So you may cast aspersions upon the Catholic Church and Catholics in their faith…

You can assert that 1500 plus years later someone had an “enlightened idea” and more clearly understood scripture than the ECF’s and Christian thought and understanding from 33AD to then…but I will adhere [and not with shame or fear] to the historical truth fround both in the Church and in the Scriptures [compiled by that same Church].

So you may YADA, YADA, YADA all you want…your condesension does not bother me…

 

[sandusky]

I have a friend from India [Idia - the country with about 500 languages]. In his mother tongue [even today] they have no specific name for brother. A brother is any male relative - your father’s [or mother’s] brother - an uncle, a biological brother, a cousin, a male relative by marriage, adoption or other legally acguired male relative. It is even used to refer to a male compatriot from the same village [or clan] that is not related by blood or marriage. In fact, this is common culturally today as is was in the time of Jesus and before. Tribal [or clan] cultures share this in common [at least the majority do].

Scripture makes no references to other chilldren of Mary [the mother of Jesus] and as such, scripture makes no claim to brothers [or sisters] of Jesus.

Jesus, is called the Son of Joseph…if we must take scripture literally on this point then Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God and the Lord of All…he would be a fraud…

So you may cast aspersions upon the Catholic Church and Catholics in their faith…

You can assert that 1500 plus years later someone had an “enlightened idea” and more clearly understood scripture than the ECF’s and Christian thought and understanding from 33AD to then…but I will adhere [and not with shame or fear] to the historical truth fround both in the Church and in the Scriptures [compiled by that same Church].

So you may YADA, YADA, YADA all you want…your condesension does not bother me…

Had the NT been written in 500 different Indian languages, you might have a point; but, since it was written in one language, and that not even an Indian language, and that also having clear, and unmistakable words for brother, sister, cousin, relative, friend, you don’t have a point.

What you have is a commitment to tradition, and an “infallibly” defined dogma to which you must fully submit; therefore, you cannot let the natural meaning of the words, consciously used by the HS, to speak for themselves in their respectives contexts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Um, the NT was written in ONE language? Jerome wrote the Vulgate because the manuscript copies of Scripture were in several languages, didn’t he?. Greek (and there is more than one form of Greek), Aramaic. . .

 

[sandusky]

Um, the NT was written in ONE language? Jerome wrote the Vulgate because the manuscript copies of Scripture were in several languages, didn’t he?. Greek (and there is more than one form of Greek), Aramaic. . .

Jerome is not an apostle, authenticated by God, and inspired by the HS.

There are not Aramaic manuscripts; did Christ and the apostles speak Aramaic? Probably; nevertheless, the earliest NT manuscripts, purported to be canon, are written in Greek.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually I believe the language at the time of Christ (for the Jewish people) was Aramaic, and scholars do purport that the “Hebrew gospel” of Matthew was first written in Aramaic, and later Hebrew.