Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[Nickkname]

Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

I believe Jesus was an only Son - theologically, biologically, and historically.

Theologically: He was the only-begotten Son of God. He wouldn’t be able to prove this claim in the time that He lived in if He had brothers.

Biologically: His humanity came from Mary’s humanity and Mary, in light of her vow of chastity, was a virgin throughout her life.

Historically: There is no written record of Jesus ever having siblings, but, ironically, there is written record of everything else in His life - not only written by His friends but also by His enemies.

 

[KenEOTE]

But see what my point was Philip is brought alongside the carriage at the very moment when the ethiopian is pondering the meaning of Christianity. from its earliest origins, has applied to Christ. If Philip had not stopped to explain to him the passage he would not have proclaimed Jesus to him. There is no way that the eunuch was a believer in Christ, but he had the sense to accept the ORAL TEACHINGS, and then get Baptised. Jesus was the Sheep lead to the Slaughter but he had no way of knowing this. untill Philip taught him. That is why we cannot define scripture on our own. Again there is no way he would ever understand what that meant if it was not taught to him. Philip tied the ot into the nt. But again my point oral teachings. And my other point even though it was written the eunuch had the sense to admit HOW CAN I UNLESS SOMEONE INSTRUCTS ME? And what i am saying just because he didnt have the smarts to understand the passage he had the sense to understand he needed to be baptised. By Again Oral Teachings! Now where did it say in the Bible any of this. Again it couldnt not at that time, The bible was long after Christ.

No I understood your point I just wanted to make sure people knew he wasn’t a Christian, but a Jewish Ethopian who was studying the OT.

 

[rinnie]

I believe Jesus was an only Son - theologically, biologically, and historically.

Theologically: He was the only-begotten Son of God. He wouldn’t be able to prove this claim in the time that He lived in if He had brothers.

Biologically: His humanity came from Mary’s humanity and Mary, in light of her vow of chastity, was a virgin throughout her life.

Historically: There is no written record of Jesus ever having siblings, but, ironically, there is written record of everything else in His life - not only written by His friends but also by His enemies.

nickname. Now that only-begotten Son of God, That in itself may be the answer. I missed that one all together. Because even if Joseph did have other children, they were not of the Blessed Mother, and you are right, she had Jesus through God, He claimed to be the Only begotten Son not only of God but of the Blessed Mother. Not once in scripture was this questioned ever. But that Only-begotten Son not only proves he was the only Son of God, IT also proves he was the only son of the Blessed Mother.

 

[rinnie]

No I understood your point I just wanted to make sure people knew he wasn’t a Christian, but a Jewish Ethopian who was studying the OT.

No hey bud, no problem, and when I went back and read it I can see where i wasnt as clear as i needed to be either. I was so set on showing Oral Scripture, What i should have said was he couldnt have read about Baptism, and he didnt even know who JESUS was when he was reading the scripture passage. But what I was meaning was he was READING so he wasnt stupid, he saw the scripture but did not know the meaning. (which that scripture was about Jesus, if scripture was enough why didnt he know) he still needed someone to open his eyes to the meaning.

But i can see where both of you took it wrong and it was my fault 100%. Its like when you talk to people you can get it all out. But (and i am real guilty of this) when i type i think people know what i am thinking. But im getting better. But thanks though, but i screwed up. thats what i get for always being in a hurry.

 

[KenEOTE]

No hey bud, no problem, and when I went back and read it I can see where i wasnt as clear as i needed to be either. I was so set on showing Oral Scripture, What i should have said was he couldnt have read about Baptism, and he didnt even know who JESUS was when he was reading the scripture passage. But what I was meaning was he was READING so he wasnt stupid, he saw the scripture but did not know the meaning. (which that scripture was about Jesus, if scripture was enough why didnt he know) he still needed someone to open his eyes to the meaning.

But i can see where both of you took it wrong and it was my fault 100%. Its like when you talk to people you can get it all out. But (and i am real guilty of this) when i type i think people know what i am thinking. But im getting better. But thanks though, but i screwed up. thats what i get for always being in a hurry.

No worries I understand getting in a rush as well. I do that all the time.

 

[Jeremiah333]

No, it tells us that Mary was the mother of Jesus. The brothers mentioned here were children of the “other Mary” (the “sister” of Jesus’ mother).

But what about the following verse.
.

**Matthew 12:46

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him**.

It would say “his mother and cousins stood outside…” if they “brothers” mentioned were the sons of Mary’s sister, but it doesn’t say that.

 

[maryj]

But what about the following verse.
.

**Matthew 12:46 **

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

It would say “his mother and cousins stood outside…” if they “brothers” mentioned were the sons of Mary’s sister, but it doesn’t say that.

O.k. for the umpteenth time…the Hebrew word for brother indicates, nephew, kinsmen, cousin, relative, friend, or associate. To determine exact relationship to Jesus we must examine other verses to get a fuller picture. Have you read through this thread? If not, it’s been fascinating I suggest giving it a read.

 

[justasking4]

O.k. for the umpteenth time…the Hebrew word for brother indicates, nephew, kinsmen, cousin, relative, friend, or associate. To determine exact relationship to Jesus we must examine other verses to get a fuller picture. Have you read through this thread? If not, it’s been fascinating I suggest giving it a read.

Actually there are specific Greek words that would have been used to specify that these were His cousins or relatives.
Here is how these words are used in various places.
There are Greek words for cousin=anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36.

The best way to understand brothers in relation to Christ where it is mentioned is that these are His blood brothers by Mary.

 

[sola_scriptura]

O.k. for the umpteenth time…the Hebrew word for brother indicates, nephew, kinsmen, cousin, relative, friend, or associate. To determine exact relationship to Jesus we must examine other verses to get a fuller picture. Have you read through this thread? If not, it’s been fascinating I suggest giving it a read.

That’s sort of misleading. An Aramaic writer would usually describe a cousin using words like “the son of his mothers sister” or words to that effect. The Koine Greek word could mean other relations – however, the Greek word for “sister” is also used (which doesn’t have an alternative meaning as a non-sibling relative).

These words can mean brother or sister, as in fellow Christian or how one would address perhaps a fellow soldier (you get the point) – however, the context does not allow for this rendering.

So it’s either Joseph brought children into the marriage or Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage (sorry – I know Catholics want to think Joseph was a virgin too … but not possible). What is it with virgins? Golly, even Adam and Eve before the fall were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (so obviously they were able to make love)??? Geesh

This whole argument is really about infallibility. God forbid you guys admit you’re as prone to error as the rest of us?

 

[justasking4]

That’s sort of misleading. An Aramaic writer would usually describe a cousin using words like “the son of his mothers sister” or words to that effect. The Koine Greek word could mean other relations – however, the Greek word for “sister” is also used (which doesn’t have an alternative meaning as a non-sibling relative).

These words can mean brother or sister, as in fellow Christian or how one would address perhaps a fellow soldier (you get the point) – however, the context does not allow for this rendering.

So it’s either Joseph brought children into the marriage or Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage (sorry – I know Catholics want to think Joseph was a virgin too … but not possible). What is it with virgins? Golly, even Adam and Eve before the fall were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (so obviously they were able to make love)??? Geesh

This whole argument is really about infallibility. God forbid you guys admit you’re as prone to error as the rest of us?

Your last points is so right on. It is impossible to admit since their church tells them it is impossible for them to err in matters of faith and morals. No matter how much evidence is shown that Mary did indeed have other children of her own they will stll fall back to the church cannot ever be wrong. This truly is an impossible situation for them…

 

[sola_scriptura]

Your last points is so right on. It is impossible to admit since their church tells them it is impossible for them to err in matters of faith and morals. No matter how much evidence is shown that Mary did indeed have other children of her own they will stll fall back to the church cannot ever be wrong. This truly is an impossible situation for them…

This is how God arranged things to provide irrefutable witness to His elect that no man or collection of men can be infallible. Only God is perfect!

 

[sola_scriptura]

It is obvious that Strong’s concordance is influenced by a faulty Protestant belief system. He ignores the fact that the word “sister” (adelphe) does clearly refer to female relatives other than siblings and to tribe members on occasion in the Old Testament. Here are a couple of examples:

They (Rebekah’s mother and brother) blessed Rebekah, and said to her, “May you, our sister (kin), become thousands of ten thousands, and may your desendants possess the gate of those who hate them.”

kai euloghsan Rebekkan thn adelfhn autwn kai eipan auth adelfh hmwn ei ginou eiv xiliadav muriadwn kai klhronohmsatw to sperma sou tav poleiv twn upenantiwn.
Genesis 24:60

“And now, O Lord, you know that I take my ‘sister’ (tribal relation) in conjugal union, not by reason of worldly pleasure, but solely for the love of posterity, in which your name may be blessed forever an ever.”
Tobit 8:9

Like I stated above in this thread, the word “sister” (adelphe) does not strictly apply to female siblings in Semitic usage. And it makes no difference whether the Book of Tobit is considered an apocryphal text by Protestants. This OT book still accurately reflects ancient Jewish culture. This practice of employing a wide range of meaning to a word or term surfaces in the New Testament with regard to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Strong’s personal bias means zilch to us Catholics.

PAX

Nice try GF … but no cigar.

The Greek word used in the Septuagint for “sister” (in Genesis 24:60) is:

’achowth

The Greek word used for sister in Mark 6:3 is:

Adelphe

Different words.

However, yes you’re right achowth could mean another type of relative.

But I mean seriously – did you even look up the words first?

 

[maryj]

Your last points is so right on. It is impossible to admit since their church tells them it is impossible for them to err in matters of faith and morals. No matter how much evidence is shown that Mary did indeed have other children of her own they will stll fall back to the church cannot ever be wrong. This truly is an impossible situation for them…

well…No matter how much evidence is shown that Mary did not have other children of her own they still fall back on their own opinion that they couldn’t possibly ever be wrong. This truly is an impossible situation for you.

Shaking the dust from my shoes now. God Bless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What astonishes me most is that the same people who bleat about teachings like infallibility and the Immaculate Conception as being 'new teachings, infallibility in 1870 and the Immaculate Conception in 1854, how can you Catholics claim to follow the Bible with these new teachings?" are the same people who have rejected 2000 years worth of teaching (not just infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, which were not ‘new’ teachings anyway. . .but teachings such as the Real Presence and the Perpetual Virginity, which have been taught again from the start of Christianity and continue to be taught by Catholics and Orthodox and even some Protestants themselves). . .and themselves have embraced ‘new teachings’–teachings which their own Protestant founders rejected as false–teachings of men.

Why are Catholics excoriated for ‘teaching something new’ (when it is not new at all) but some (not all) Protestants are praised for rejecting the original teachings, and bringing in new teachings which really are new, contradict the true and original teachings, and are totally ‘made up’ by fallible men?

 

[guanophore]

That’s sort of misleading. An Aramaic writer would usually describe a cousin using words like “the son of his mothers sister” or words to that effect. The Koine Greek word could mean other relations – however, the Greek word for “sister” is also used (which doesn’t have an alternative meaning as a non-sibling relative).

Yes, an Aramaic writer would do this. However, the relations of his mothers sisters offspring are not the focus of the gospel, so a much briefer reference is made. Clearly Elizabeth is also old enough to be her mother’s sister, but she is only referred to as “kin”.

The other reality that is ignored is the clan relations. The Jews were a people of clans, and all those who were of near kindred and clan members are considered brothers and sisters. This has to do with eligibility for marriage, as well as blood relations.

These words can mean brother or sister, as in fellow Christian or how one would address perhaps a fellow soldier (you get the point) – however, the context does not allow for this rendering.

We see this in the household of David, where no distinction is made between siblings of different mothers.

So it’s either Joseph brought children into the marriage or Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage (sorry – I know Catholics want to think Joseph was a virgin too … but not possible).

The Catholic Church has never taught that Joseph was also a virgin. this is another example of your lack of real knowledge of Catholicism.

What is it with virgins? Golly, even Adam and Eve before the fall were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (so obviously they were able to make love)??? Geesh

Great question, but grist for another thread. Start one, and I will be happy to accomodate.

This whole argument is really about infallibility. God forbid you guys admit you’re as prone to error as the rest of us?

Us guys are as prone, sure. The Holy Church is not because of the divine elements that prevent error. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine aspects of the Church that make her infallible.

 

[guanophore]

Yes it does say Mary was His mother. Keep in mind that its also connect “with His brothers.” This alone tells us He had brothers and Mary was their mother.

Part of the problem is taking the verse “alone”. If you are not willing to look at what the rest of the NT says, who can help you?

Mark 6:2-3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

" There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem." Mark 15:40-41

This passage shows that Mary, the mother of James the younger, Joses, was standing at a distance from the cross. She was one of the women that used to follow Jesus when He was in Galilee and provide for him.

 

[Good_Fella]

Nice try GF … but no cigar.

The Greek word used in the Septuagint for “sister” (in Genesis 24:60) is:

’achowth

The Greek word used for sister in Mark 6:3 is:

Adelphe

Different words.

However, yes you’re right achowth could mean another type of relative.

But I mean seriously – did you even look up the words first?

‘Achoth’ is the Hebrew word for “sister” derived from ‘ach’ which is the Hebrew word for “brother”. I provided the Greek translation of Genesis 24:60 in my previous post. Perhaps you should take a look at it again a little more closely.

kia eulogisan Rebekkan thn adelfhn autwn kai auth adelfh hmwn ei ginou eiv xiliadev muriadwn kai klhronohmsatw to sperma sou tav poleiv twn upenantiwn twn.

The Greek word is translated from the Hebrew, so it reflects the Hebraic or Semitic usage of the word “sister” (achoth).

PAX

 

[SORROWS]

Jesus did not have any biological brothers and sisters.

Things to think about. When Jesus was 12 and lost for 3 days, St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother never sent any other children of theirs to find Him or even walk with Him. They found him alone with the teachers in the temple.

During Mass the Priest may say “Brothers and sisters…” this doesn’t mean we are biological but members of the family of Christ.

 

[KenEOTE]

Jesus did not have any biological brothers and sisters.

Things to think about. When Jesus was 12 and lost for 3 days, St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother never sent any other children of theirs to find Him or even walk with Him. They found him alone with the teachers in the temple.

During Mass the Priest may say “Brothers and sisters…” this doesn’t mean we are biological but members of the family of Christ.

This is an interesting argument. But I have heard it argued. If Mary and Joseph had but one child to look after how did they lose him so easily?

 

[Good_Fella]

This is an interesting argument. But I have heard it argued. If Mary and Joseph had but one child to look after how did they lose him so easily?

Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances, but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.
Luke 2, 44

I doubt a twelve year old boy was holding on to his mother’s hand all the time. As Jesus, Mary, and Joseph travelled together with their relatives and acquaintances in a caravan, Jesus must have ran about and played with his cousins and friends, providing him the chance to slip away.

PAX