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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Derrickdcosta said:
Hi all,
Just thought you would be interested in what St Alphonsus who quotes St Jerome wrote about this issue, you may perhaps not accept his words even though St Jerome is responsible for the Catholic Vulgate but you must appreciate the logic of his reply. This is taken from the History of Heresies By St Alphonsus Liguori ****CHAPTER V. HERESIES OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. ARTICLE I. THE HERESIES OF ELVIDIUS, JOVINIANUS, AND VIGILANTIUS. ****

Elvidius was a disciple of the Arian Ausentius, who was intruded into the See of Milan by the Emperor Constans, when he banished St. Dionisius. St. Jerome says he was a turbulent character, both as priest and layman; but, notwithstanding this high authority, it is doubtful whether he ever was a priest, because, as Noel Alexander says, he was a poor peasant, who scarcely knew his letters. He began to disseminate his heretical doctrines in the year 382. He said that the Blessed Virgin had other children by St. Joseph, besides our Lord, and he relied on the authority of Tertullian for this blasphemy; but St. Jerome proves that Tertullian never held such doctrine. St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, and especially St. Jerome refuted the errors of Elvidius.
He drew three arguments from the Scriptures in support of his heresy : First That text of St. Matthew : " Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., i, 18).
He, therefore, argued, as the text says " before they came together," it is a proof that they after wards did so. Next he adduced the twenty-fifth verse of the same chapter : " And he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son." Therefore, he argues he knew her after. St. Jerome, in his answer, says : " **Should I grieve or smile at this folly." He then asks, in derision : If any one should say that Elvidius was seized on by death before he did penance, is that a proof that he did penance after death ? He then brings other texts of Scripture to refute him. Our Lord says to his apostles, " Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii, 20); does that prove, says St. Jerome, that Jesus Christ will not be with his elect any more after the end of the world ? St. Paul says of Christ, " For he must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet" (Cor. xv, 25); so, when our Lord has conquered his enemies, he will reign no longer. In the book of Genesis it is said of the crow that left the ark, " That it did not return till the waters were dried up" (Gen. viii, 7); does it then follow that it returned to the ark when the waters were dried up ? **Away, then, with arguments of this sort, says St. Jerome (1); the Scripture here tells, not what was done, but what was not done not what took place, but what did not.
The second proof Elvidius adduces is taken from the text already mentioned (Matt, i, 25) : " She brought forth her first-born son ;" therefore, if he was her first-born, she must have had others after. St. Jerome answers this : The Lord commanded, that for every first-born a certain ransom should be paid a month after the birth (Numbers, xviii, 15, 16). Here, then, says St. Jerome, according to Elvidius, one might say : " How can I be obliged to pay a price for my first-born after a month; how can I tell whether I shall ever have a second ? I must wait till a second is born to me, and then I can pay for the first-born." But the Scripture says itself, that the first-born is that which first " openeth the womb."
The same is declared in Exodus, where it says : " The Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt" (Exod. xii, 29). Here there is no doubt, but that the text speaks of only-born as well as first-born. His third argument is from the text of St. Luke (viii, 19) : " His mother and brethren came to him." Therefore, he had brothers; but St. Jerome proves, from a great many passages in the Scriptures, that first-cousins are also called brothers, and the brothers referred to in that text are St. James and St. John, the children of the other Mary, the sister of the Mother of God.
(1) St. Hieron. l. 1, Comment, in cap. ii, Matt.
Click to expand...
*He began to disseminate his heretical doctrines in the year 382. He said that the Blessed Virgin had other children by St. Joseph, besides our Lord, and he relied on the authority of Tertullian for this blasphemy; but St. Jerome proves that Tertullian never held such doctrine. St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, and especially St. Jerome refuted the errors of Elvidius… *
Click to expand...
*St. Jerome proves, from a great many passages in the Scriptures, that first-cousins are also called brothers, and the brothers referred to in that text are St. James and St. John, the children of the other Mary, the sister of the Mother of God. *
Click to expand...
Thank you 🙂
 
Jimmy_B said:
Thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
You are most welcome. In fact thank St Jerome who forces us to recall his words by his satire and the sheer force of his logic.
I found this thread by chance when surfing the forum for a totally unrelated topic.
As a Goan Indian we have been brought up to debate everything but religion as apart from the persecution which is fairly recent, there are a wide range of religions, Hindu, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Animist, Jain, Sikh living in close proximity not to mention the diverse seperate groups of people who consider themselves as Christians is including one the oldest groups of Nestorians. I could go on but In my next post I will put down St Jerome’s testimony to show with what reverence he translated the Holy Scripture.
God bless
Derrick
 
The testimony of St Jerome is given just for the sake of understanding his love for Scripture :“Has light any communication with darkness? What agreement has Christ with Belial?” asks St. Paul. And what, I may ask, has Horace do with the Psalter? Or Vergil with the Gospels, or Cicero with the Apostle? Would not a brother Christian be shocked and scandalized if he saw you reclining on a dinner couch in the temple of some idol?
Even though to the pure of heart all things are pure, and though nothing should be refused if it be received with thanksgiving, we should not drink at the same time from the chalice of Christ and the bowl of devils.

An incident from my own wretched experience might illustrate this.
Many years ago for the sake of the kingdom of heaven I castrated myself from home, parents, sister, relatives and, harder still, from the appetizing meals to which I had grown accustomed.
On to Jerusalem I went to fight the good fight. But the library I had
collected during student days at Rome with such diligence and hard work this I simply could not bring myself to abandon. What a miserable creature I was: after fasting, I would gloat over my Cicero; after many nights spent in vigil, and after tears wrung from my heart of hearts by the recollection of past sins, I would grab up Plautus in my hands. Finally returning to my senses, I began to read the Prophets again, but their literary style seemed so barbaric, so obnoxious. Unable to see the light, still I blamed the sun, not my eyes.

While the Old Serpent was ridiculing me like this, about the middle of Lent a fever invaded my exhausted body, spread through the bloodstream, and though this might seem incredible ravished my wretched frame till nothing remained but skin and bones.

Meanwhile, a funeral had been arranged. Gradually my whole body froze, life’s vital warmth palpitating just a little bit in my throbbing breast.

Suddenly I was transported in the spirit, and dragged before the court of a great judge. Light was so bright there, and so luminous was the radiance shining from those assembled around the judgment seat, that I flung myself to the ground, fearfully covering my eyes.

Asked to identify myself, I replied that I was a Christian.

This the Judge remonstrated. “Liar,” He announced, “you are a Ciceronian, not a Christian. For where our treasure is, there is your heart also.”

On the spot, I became speechless. And while I was being whipped, according to His orders, the fires of conscience tortured me even worse.

Muttering to myself over and over again the verse, “Who will remember you in the grave?” despite all my agony I managed to cry out, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, have mercy.”

Loudly the whip cracked, but my voice somehow was heard. Eventually the audience, falling at the knees of the Judge, beseeched Him to forgive my youth and afford an opportunity to repent. In the future, they continued, fitting punishment may be inflicted on Jerome if he ever again read the pagan authors.

Amid such dreadful circumstances I would have been only too willing to promise much more than that; and so I took an oath, calling on His name: “O Lord, if I ever so much as possess secular books again, or if I ever read them, then Jerome has denied You.”

Dismissed after this, I returned to the upper world; and there, to everyone’s astonishment, I opened my eyes, which were so brimmed with tears that my distress convinced even the incredulous that the incident had really occurred.

What had happened, my dear, was no mere curiosity of sleep, no illusory dream which so often deceives one. As witness I call on the court where I begged forgiveness, and on the judgment I dreaded so much. May I never again be brought before such an inquisition! And I swear, Eustochium, that my shoulders were black and blue: long after I awoke I suffered from bruises.

From that moment I studied the books of God with greater attention than I had ever given to the writings of men.
 
believers said:
Yes. I can prove it!
Jesus quotes the Psalms

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
Click to expand...
He was despised and rejected by men.
Isaiah 53, 3

Nice try, but Psalm 69:4-9 is not even remotely alluding to Jesus’ alleged siblings. Psalm 69 is a veiled messianic prophecy to some extent, but in the original or primary context, God is speaking about King David, saying he will be a father unto him. What is said about David in this psalm may at some point allude to Jesus Christ. But the psalm is not a messianic prophecy in its entirety. Psalm 69 does not allude to Jesus where we have “when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him”. The Son of Man did not commit iniquity, since he was sinless. This passage refers strictly to David. It deals with the original context and its primary fulfillment. In like manner the expression “my mother’s sons” in v.8 is not alluding to the Messiah and should be taken in its primary context, David’s relationship to his biological brothers.

All the same, verses 8-9 may find a secondary fulfillment in John 1, 11: He came to his own, but his own people did not receive him . But these children who are mentioned are not the biological offsprings of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In John 1, 11 we have “his own” [neuter: literally his own property and possession] and “his own people” [the Israelites, who belonged to God as his own chosen possession but rejected His Only-begotten Son, the Messiah]. In this sense it would be precise to say Jesus was rejected by ‘his’ brethren. The law was fulfilled and brought to completion in Jesus who was unjustifiably rejected by the Jews. The idea of siblings of Jesus having an essential role to play in our salvation is preposterous. I doubt the evangelists would bother to record something as incidental and mundane as sibling rivalry. Our Lord had no rivals or challengers to his rightful inheritance to begin with as neither did Isaac, who prefigured Christ.

And he said to the Jews, “Behold your king!” (the ultimate King David) They cried out, Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests (our Lord’s brethren in his Father’s house) answered, “We have no king but Caesar!” Then he handed him over to be crucified.
John 19, 14-16

Our Lord was consumed as a sacrifice by the blind religious zeal of the elders of the temple.

“Some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 19, 12

“And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For if it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity.”
Origen, ‘Commentary on Matthew, 2:17’ [A.D. 248]

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin.”
Basil, ‘Homily in Sanctum Christi generationem, 5’ [ante A.D. 379]

Vote “No!” :blessyou:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Jimmy_B said:
Ok, so then you agree, that’s great!

Thank you…

Peace.
Click to expand...
Well no – I do think scripture reveals Jesus had siblings. The RCC and EOC don’t even agree on this question (the EOC thinks Joseph was an old widower who brought kids into the marriage).

Essentially we cannot know the nature of Jesus’ family, so why pick a fight over it?
 
LutheranDK said:
Can you prove He didn’t?
Click to expand...
The simple truth is that there is much more evidence that he didn’t have siblings than to argue that he did.

If you tried to prove or disprove it in a court of law, there is enough reasonable doubt based on scripture alone to win the case that he didn’t.
 
elvisman said:
The simple truth is that there is much more evidence that he didn’t have siblings than to argue that he did.

If you tried to prove or disprove it in a court of law, there is enough reasonable doubt based on scripture alone to win the case that he didn’t.
Click to expand...
I can tell you never went to law school? Reasonable doubt is quite a high bar friend. In a court of law we wouldn’t even be able to show the historicity of Jesus (based on the few claims by Josephus) let alone whether He had siblings.
 
sola_scriptura said:
I can tell you never went to law school? Reasonable doubt is quite a high bar friend. In a court of law we wouldn’t even be able to show the historicity of Jesus (based on the few claims by Josephus) let alone whether He had siblings.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing “reasonable doubt” with the phrase, “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
People have been sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence alone.

As for your claim the Jesus’ historicity is in doubt, that is pretty much a dead argument that has been debunked handily. I suggest you read Lee Strobel’s, “The Case For Christ”.

Strobel is a Protestant author who, as a reporter, covered some of the biggest court cases in the last 25 years . He has shown using manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence and the science of statistical probability that Jesus did, in fact exist.

As for Jesus’ supposed uterine siblings, I can show you from scripture alone that he didn’t have any.
 
elvisman said:
I think you’re confusing "reasonable doubt" with the phrase, “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
**People have been sentenced to death based on circumstantial **evidence alone.
Click to expand...
No I’m not, I went to law school and hold a JD (from a good “Catholic” law school btw).
As for your claim the Jesus’ historicity is in doubt, that is pretty much a dead argument that has been debunked handily. I suggest you read Lee Strobel’s, “The Case For Christ”.
Click to expand...
I’m a Christian, my faith doesn’t rely on some secular notion of historicity. I believe Jesus lived, was both God and man, died for our sins, and on the third day rose again. Nothing shakes my faith.
Strobel is a Protestant author who, as a reporter, covered some of the biggest court cases in the last 25 years . He has shown using manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence and the science of statistical probability that Jesus did, in fact exist.

As for Jesus’ supposed uterine siblings, I can show you from scripture alone that he didn’t have any.
Click to expand...
Again, you’re preaching to the choir. My point is who cares what the secular world asserts regarding the “historicity” of our Lord.

The bottom line is this might be useful in our communications with atheists, but with that group as a starting place we need to show why God exists; and then work from there. With the Jewish faithful, however, the historicity argument is important. However, even most Jewish folks do not dispute the historicity of Jesus.

So at the end the day the best thing to know is Scripture. And not only know it but understand it; but you’re point is well taken, it’s important to have a wide breadth of knowledge regarding all these things so we can make our case for God. We are His mouthpiece. Not only everything we say but everything we do.
 
sola_scriptura said:
No I’m not, I went to law school and hold a JD (from a good “Catholic” law school btw).

I’m a Christian, my faith doesn’t rely on some secular notion of historicity. I believe Jesus lived, was both God and man, died for our sins, and on the third day rose again. Nothing shakes my faith.

Again, you’re preaching to the choir. My point is who cares what the secular world asserts regarding the “historicity” of our Lord.

The bottom line is this might be useful in our communications with atheists, but with that group as a starting place we need to show why God exists; and then work from there. With the Jewish faithful, however, the historicity argument is important. However, even most Jewish folks do not dispute the historicity of Jesus.

So at the end the day the best thing to know is Scripture. And not only know it but understand it; but you’re point is well taken, it’s important to have a wide breadth of knowledge regarding all these things so we can make our case for God. We are His mouthpiece. Not only everything we say but everything we do.
Click to expand...
I was simply showing that a case based on secular evidence could be made because of the following statement YOU made:
**“In a court of law we wouldn’t even be able to show the historicity of Jesus (based on the few claims by Josephus) let alone whether He had siblings.” **
I didn’t say that - YOU did.

Originally, I did only appeal to scripture. It was you who threw down the gauntlet of secular historicity. I said that I could show beyond a reasonable doubt (not all doubt) that Jesus’ brethren - as mentioned in the bible - were not his uterine siblings.
 
sola_scriptura said:
I can tell you never went to law school? Reasonable doubt is quite a high bar friend. In a court of law we wouldn’t even be able to show the historicity of Jesus (based on the few claims by Josephus) let alone whether He had siblings.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the term “shooting yourself in the foot” also works in English to describe a statement or action that had one intend, but had another consequence.

You tried to refute an erronous statement with an erronous statement. Josephus is NOT the only source of Jesus’s historicity - although he is a HUGE authority on the matter. and a clear indication that there did indeed exist a man known as Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years ago.
 
LutheranDK said:
Can you prove He didn’t?
Click to expand...
Hello LutheranDK,

Can you prove that He did; that Jesus did have biological brothers? The answer is, no you can’t.

I don’t have to prove that Jesus, did not have biological brothers, the early Christian (Catholic Church) already addressed this issue. Your dispute is not with me, it is with the Early Church.

It was Protestant men, who, many years after the fact, misinterpreted the Bible, rejected Holy Christian History and Holy Christian Tradition and rejected Christ’s, one true, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It was Protestant men, who rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (not the Catholic Church) and have claimed that Jesus had biological bothers, based solely on two or three Bible verses, which were misinterpreted, and taken out of context to try a “disprove” a previously accepted Catholic/Christian Truth.

Jesus did not have biological brothers and the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary”, is a Christian truth!

Since Protestantism occurred more than 1500 years after the fact, after Catholicism and the translated verses in question, which allegedly dispute a previously accepted Christian truth and were verses taken from a Catholic book, the Bible…the burden of proof is on those who follow Catholicism and are now attempting to, after the fact, re-write Holy Christian History and re-invent Christianity.

Why is there more than one Christian religion today? Why is there more than one Protestant denomination today?

Rejection of various Christian (Catholic) truths, by various groups over the years, is why there exists today, literally, thousands of Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations.

I am a Roman Catholic, which means I accept Christianity…All of it and I do not belong to the “religion of my own intellect”, which is what “personal interpretation” creates.

The false belief that Jesus had biological brothers and the rejection of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are examples where some have rejected Christian truths.

Some of these myths and heretical beliefs come from heretics and heretical writings from Early Christian History, beliefs, which were rejected by the Early Church, and beliefs, which are not found in the Bible. Moreover, some of these beliefs, are merely examples where, some today are repeating a false exegesis’, create by “man”, a Protestant man and are not from God.

There is only one God and He represents only one Truth. There cannot exist, 36,000 different versions of the “truth”, or 36,000 different definitions of the “truth” and countless misinterpretations of what is “true”…

The false Protestant, non-Catholic Christian doctrine of “personal interpretation” has been a disaster for Christianity and has been the cause of thousands of divisions and sub-divisions of Christianity. This discussion here, regarding the supposed “biological brothers of Jesus”, is more proof that the errant belief, which allows for “personal interpreted” of the Bible was a terrible mistake.

I hope that you can appreciate, at least some of what I have written here, much of which was intended for a broader audience and all of which is well intended. I am sure that we agree on more than we disagree, however I will defend my own Catholic Faith and I hope that you can appreciate that as well…

Your thought?

Peace
 
LutheranDK said:
I don’t know if the term “shooting yourself in the foot” also works in English to describe a statement or action that had one intend, but had another consequence.

You tried to refute an erronous statement with an erronous statement. Josephus is NOT the only source of Jesus’s historicity - although he is a HUGE authority on the matter. and a clear indication that there did indeed exist a man known as Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...
He’s the only real credible “historical” source. However, Paul tells us there were 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ & of course we have the other Apostles. Look, I believe in Christ (so much is obvious), however, if you really insist on going down the “reasonable doubt” road then I guess I’ll play along for fun:

In the first instance Paul’s statement regarding the 500 witnesses is hearsay. In fact we cannot establish even that Paul took direct testimony from these 500 witnesses, therefore it becomes “double hearsay” and as such is inadmissible into evidence.

None of the other writings we have from the Apostles are the original manuscripts, so again double hearsay & inadmissible.

Even the record of Josephus merely records what he knew to be true from third party sources, so again double hearsay.

So while sufficient evidence of the historicity of Jesus does exist to make a credible scholarly case (from the perspective of historians) – something like this cannot be proven in a court of law. The law is not the recorder of history, if it were we would have no history much less religion.

Now back to the issue at hand, did Jesus have siblings?

The preponderance of the evidence weighs toward the affirmative. Indeed Scripture tells us as much, and the context cannot be denied. The Latin Rite church goes through pains to say they were the cousins of Jesus rather than siblings; however, looking at the original Koine Greek, taken together with the context weighs in favor of a sibling relationship.

To say you can prove me wrong by a “reasonable doubt” is obviously not true (at least not in any legal system I am acquainted with) – so lets dispense with the silly idea that either of us can prove anything by a reasonable doubt shall we? My simple point is the evidence we do have weighs in favor of the sibling proposition (again, even the Eastern Orthodox church believes they were Josephs children from a prior marriage). Or does Joseph have to be a virgin too? 😃
 
I believe that Jesus did not have any biological brothers and/or sisters. I also believe that there is the possibility that Joseph was a widower and that Jesus had adoptive (best term I can think of) brothers and/or sisters through Joseph.
 
Cobbfmly said:
I believe that Jesus did not have any biological brothers and/or sisters. I also believe that there is the possibility that Joseph was a widower and that Jesus had adoptive (best term I can think of) brothers and/or sisters through Joseph.
Click to expand...
Sure your rendering is possible; just not probable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top