E
emeraldcoast
Guest
This is way out of line…
Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?
- Status
D
davidcoit
Guest
Your right , I’m wrong. Forgive me I was way out of line.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Apology accepted … thank you very much.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
He stayed there ‘until’ the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Matthew 2, 15
How does Scripture work with Joseph remaining in Egypt? This question is just as senseless as yours, because Matthew isn’t concerned with the time after Herod’s death at which instance Joseph and Mary will no longer have to stay in Egypt. The evangelist is concerned with the time before Herod’s death, when Joseph and Mary were compelled to flee to Egypt and stay there until the king’s demise so that the prophecy would be fulfilled. In other words, Matthew is stressing the completion of a prophecy to support his church’s belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Matthew addressed his fellow Jews when he wrote his gospel.
He had ‘no relations’ with her ‘until’ she ‘bore a son’, and he named him ‘Jesus’.
Matthew 1, 25
As in the second chapter of his gospel with Joseph as the subject, Matthew is strictly concerned with the time before the birth of Christ and the fulfillment of a prophecy. In this case it is the prophecy of the Virgin Birth Matthew refers to in support of his church’s belief in Jesus as the expected Messiah and to convince the Jews that the crucified Jesus is the Saviour.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the ‘virgin’ shall be with child, and ‘bear a son’, and shall name him ‘Emmanuel’.
Isaiah 7, 14
Notice the parallel in structure (a literary device) between Matthew and Isaiah:
“had no relations” - " the virgin"
“bore a son” - “bear a son”
“named him Jesus” - “shall name him Emmanuel” (God with us)
Matthew is concerned with the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ as is evident in how he structured his verse in line with the prophet Isaiah. And as in his second chapter, his only concern is with the fulfillment of a prophecy with reference to the period of time before its imminent fulfillment. Joseph and Mary stayed in Egypt before the death of Herod in fulfillment of the prophecy. Joseph and Mary had no relations before the birth of Jesus in fulfillment of the prophecy of the Virgin Birth.
We should note that the Virgin Birth is a secondary fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. It’s primary fulfillment occurred at the time of Ahaz. In the Gospel of Matthew we find an instance of Sacred Tradition in action!
“And behold, I am with you always ‘until’ the end of time.”
Matthew 28, 20
We know for certain that Joseph and Mary left Egypt after the death of King Herod, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they had relations after the birth of Jesus. Scripture does not record that Joseph and Mary actually had relations and Mary ‘gave birth’ to other children. Matthew only records Mary gave birth to Jesus in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which is his only concern. So citing 1, 25 as “proof” against Mary’s perpetual virginity amounts to “straining the text” and clutching at a straw in like manner of a man who has slipped into a sweeping current of a river. Matthew does not use the conjunction ‘eos’ to imply a change of a state of affairs. If it were so, then he would be telling us that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of time. But, of course, the evangelist is again referring to the time before the expected event: the end of the age - the time of the Church before the Second Coming.
Vote “No”!
PAX
Good Fella
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Mary, the New Eve:
.
The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her and he ate it.
Genesis 3, 6
“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38
The Lord God then asked the woman, “Why did you do such a thing?” The woman answered, “The serpent tricked me into it, so I ate it.”
Genesis 3, 13
“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45
And Mary said, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”
Luke 1, 46
Then the Lord God said to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.”
Genesis 3, 15
And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42
To the woman He said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.”
Genesis 3, 16
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary. For you have found favour with God.”
Luke 1, 30
The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain.
Genesis 4, 1
And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 35
Arise , O Lord, and go to thy resting place. You and the ark of your might.
Psalm 132, 8
PAX
Good Fella
G
guanophore
Guest
, where the alleged “brothers of Jesus” are “found” and named as - James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Clearly, what is meant by “brothers” here, are those who follow Christ and not biological brothers. .
I agree with all your findings, except for the reference to this mention of “brothers” being Christians. I think this is, indeed, a reference to near kindred that grew up with Christ. It is possible Cleopas is a brother of the Blessed Virgin, or a brother of Joseph, or it is possible that Joseph had another wife who bore all these children, and maybe died during childbirth. there are many possiblities for these near kindred of Christ, but at that time, I don’t think any of them were believers:
John 7:2-5
2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5(For not even his brothers believed in him.)
I do think that at least some of them (especially James, the bishop of Jerusalem) came to believe after the resurrection.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, I disagree on the grading.Hello Cleopas and thank you for your post.
Wow…That’s a stretch…I imagine believers and others (in general) here, know that that I can prove, using the Bible that the four so-called brothers of Jesus, listed in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:2-4, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT are not Jesus’ biological brothers.
Anyone should have been able to figure this one out, because the people making the comment regarding Jesus in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:2-4 , if they were, as many Protestants claim, talking about Jesus’ biological family; then why did they say, “isn’t He the son of the carpenter…” and “are not His brothers James….” All Christians know that Jesus is the son of God and not the son of the “carpenter”, Joseph and they all should have known that James is not the biological brother of Jesus.
For some unknown reason, many of our “Protestant” friends miss these very important points (in general). Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus and James is not the biological brother of Jesus. Yet, they are willing to believe the non-believers in these verses over the believers, just as many are doing today.
How could anyone who actually claims to read the Bible (in general) miss the fact that there are only two James’ in the entire New Testament, James the son of Zebedee Matthew 4:21 and James the son of Alphaeus Matthew 10:3 .
One would assume that the argument would end here…but it doesn’t…it can’t. It can’t because, non-Catholic Protestants need this, to try to (in error) use this “brothers of Jesus” nonsense, in order to argue or “protest” the early Christian/Catholic Church and it’s belief, in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
This has to be first time that I can remember a “Bible Christian”, reaching back into the Old Testament to try to disprove any aspect of Catholicism. This looks to me, like our clever Protestant friends; don’t want to let this one go…gee I wonder why? Could it be because after the “Protestant” myth regarding the so-called “brothers of Jesus” falls, then so does the “Protestant” myth and rejection of the Christian/Catholic belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and then what will they do…What… will… they… do?
If my non-Catholic Christians friends are now resorting to typology and the use of the Old Testament books to respond to Catholicism, maybe they could take a look at Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14 . ****Revelation ****12:1 and especially **Revelation 1**2:17, where the offspring of His (Jesus’) Mother (Mary) are Christians and not His biological brothers.
Perhaps Psalms 69:4-9 is telling us that all non-Catholic Christians are the “brethren” who are the strangers to Jesus.
This is the problem (in general) one runs into with bad, personal interpretation of the Bible; to try to “disprove” any aspect of Catholicism…The Bible is a “Catholic book”.
I give him a C+ for creativity and an F for inaccurate interpretation…
Peace
The passage is clearly a Messianic Prophesy, and many parts of it are applied specifically to Jesus by Himself or the Apostles. The reference to “stranger to my mother’s children” can also be a reference to Israel as mother of all the Jews, or even specifically to those who travelled with Mary, and may have called her “mother”. They would not have to have been her biological children for her to adopt them or treat them as her own. Indeed, are we not all in that status with her?
G
guanophore
Guest
I am afraid this is a moot point, since Joseph came from a Davidic line that was sworn never to have the crown.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
I am afraid this is a moot point, since Joseph came from a Davidic line that was sworn never to have the crown.
G
graceandglory
Guest
I was brought up believing Mary was ever-Virgin. I left the Catholic Church to worship as an evangelical for about 20 yrs. Never in that time, did I ever set aside the idea that Jesus had no siblings. It was always an area that “we could disagree, but not divide over” in the protestant churches I attended.
How many references in the New Testament are there with the word brothers, brethren? How many times do they mean “believers?” How many times do they children from the same mother?
While protestants may find it hard to believe that the Virgin Mary and Joseph her Most Chaste Spouse could have remained celibate, the Catholic Church is filled with lifetime consecrated celibates, and it is certainly possible. Yes, it takes a heroic amount of the virtue of chastity, but it is possible.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
This is a poor argument to explain the references to Jesus’ siblings in Scripture. The context of those references doesn’t allow for such a rendering. The RCC (as far as I know) does not assert who they were “conclusively” (accept to say they were not the biological children of Mary). I’ve heard “cousins” I’ve also heard the idea that they were children Joseph brought into the marriage (this is the predominant EOC view – perhaps even their official view), but it is clear (and all agree) the reference was not to “brothers” in the sense of all Christians are brothers.If my non-Catholic Christians friends are now resorting to typology and the use of the Old Testament books to respond to Catholicism, maybe they could take a look at Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14 . ****Revelation ****12:1 and especially **Revelation 1**2:17, where the offspring of His (Jesus’) Mother (Mary) are Christians and not His biological brothers.
Perhaps Psalms 69:4-9 is telling us that all non-Catholic Christians are the “brethren” who are the strangers to Jesus.
This is the problem (in general) one runs into with bad, personal interpretation of the Bible; to try to “disprove” any aspect of Catholicism…The Bible is a “Catholic book”.
I give him a C+ for creativity and an F for inaccurate interpretation…
Peace
I think “cousins” strain the text, while the idea of Josephs children from a prior marriage (assuming Joseph was a widower) is at least plausible. I do not think references to Jesus as firstborn son really prove Mary was not a perpetual virgin – but I also think it’s more likely Jesus did have siblings and they were younger (and therefore Mary’s children).
The fact that none of His siblings were present at His death seems to either bolster the RCC cousin theory or the Protestant Mary’s children theory – but it’s problematic for the EOC older siblings theory (from a prior marriage of Joseph) – especially given the fact that Jesus had a good relationship with His siblings (judging from the fact that they were heavily involved in building the early church).
G
guanophore
Guest
Let’s try to proceed with some charity here ladies. You and LilyM are on the same side of this arguement!
G
guanophore
Guest
Such a comment is as uncharitable as the one to which it is responding!
S
SIA
Guest
Looking for something more to throw in our Protestant faces huh Jimmy. Jesus did have brothers and sisters biologically. Nothing suggests in Scripture that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a perfectly normal marriage.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
This is one of those topics I can see that inflames passions.
Obviously no one will be able to prove this one either way. We are left with this in Scripture:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.
gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
Obviously no one will be able to prove this one either way. We are left with this in Scripture:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.
gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
An additional note:
I understand this is a critical topic for Catholics, so I will tread carefully in an effort not to offend. However, if we’re going to discuss this at all then even reasonable, well presented arguments devoid of emotive statements will be offensive to some (given the nature of the topic). So I think this is a topic that demands a bit of thick skin.
Of course at the end, again, no one will conclusively prove anything. It is obviously my position that the evidence points to siblings.
However, although I’m a devout Christian, in the reformed protestant tradition, I don’t have an interest in proving whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. It doesn’t offend my beliefs either way. Many of the magisterial reformers retained most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary (the main exception being veneration).
IMO the only two possibilities are that Joseph brought children into the marriage or they had a normal healthy marriage. The cousin theory strains the text.
The Greek word used for brother could mean other relatives, but its normal usage was brother, and there is a specific Greek word for cousin.
I understand this is a critical topic for Catholics, so I will tread carefully in an effort not to offend. However, if we’re going to discuss this at all then even reasonable, well presented arguments devoid of emotive statements will be offensive to some (given the nature of the topic). So I think this is a topic that demands a bit of thick skin.
Of course at the end, again, no one will conclusively prove anything. It is obviously my position that the evidence points to siblings.
However, although I’m a devout Christian, in the reformed protestant tradition, I don’t have an interest in proving whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. It doesn’t offend my beliefs either way. Many of the magisterial reformers retained most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary (the main exception being veneration).
IMO the only two possibilities are that Joseph brought children into the marriage or they had a normal healthy marriage. The cousin theory strains the text.
The Greek word used for brother could mean other relatives, but its normal usage was brother, and there is a specific Greek word for cousin.
S
SIA
Guest
TThe many Biblical references to Jesus’ siblings and Catholics unwillingness to accept them proves that Catholicism is much more concerned about that which propels their doctrine and cause rather than what it truth and what is proven in Scripture. Catholics go around spewing this idea that Scripture isn’t the only truth and ya know, they are very much correct in that. problem is, where are the other truths?? Do we really believe that they were secretly handed down in a traditional way that only Catholics posess?? Not hardly!This is one of those topics I can see that inflames passions.
Obviously no one will be able to prove this one either way. We are left with this in Scripture:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.
gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
G
Good_Fella
Guest
It’s absolutely amazing how many Protestants presume to make a public dogmatic declaration.
" ‘Jesus did have brothers and sisters biologically.’ Look here at what ‘God-breathed’ Scripture has to say about our Lord’s biological siblings. ‘Nothing suggests in Scripture that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a perfectly normal marriage’ other than the fact the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her."
PAX
Good Fella
S
SIA
Guest
Yeah and?? Does this mean that it would be a shameful act for Joseph to have sex with his wife?It’s absolutely amazing how many Protestants presume to make a public dogmatic declaration.
" ‘Jesus did have brothers and sisters biologically.’ Look here at what ‘God-breathed’ Scripture has to say about our Lord’s biological siblings. ‘Nothing suggests in Scripture that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a perfectly normal marriage’ other than the fact the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her."
PAX
Good Fella
- Status