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

[Jimmy_B]

I think that there is a possibilty that Jesus had siblings. If he did, it wouldnt change anything for me and I dont think that it would change his message or anything else.
I think that people are far too concerned with the sibling idea that they get distracted from the message that Christ gave. It would be cool to know for sure, but its not that important.

Hello Eric,

It may not change anything for you but many non-Catholics have used the - “Jesus had biological brothers” tactic, for many years to try to disprove other Catholic beliefs, like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The, “Did you know that Mary did not remain a virgin and that Jesus had brothers” comment, is a common “Protestant” talking point used to either dissuade people from becoming Catholic or to try and pull Catholics away from their own faith, I have heard it with my own ears. I have “Protestant” and “Born-Again” friends too. This discussion is important because this question is much bigger, than simply whether or not “Jesus had biological brothers”.

Peace

 

[Elric]

Hello Eric,

It may not change anything for you but many non-Catholics have used the - “Jesus had biological brothers” tactic, for many years to try to disprove other Catholic beliefs

Just to clarify, I am not using any tactic nor did I say that Jesus had biological brothers. If people think that Jesus having brothers disproves anything, then they are crazy.

like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The, “Did you know that Mary did not remain a virgin and that Jesus had brothers” comment

I really dont see how exactly that makes a difference to Jesus’ teachings and his message. Mary remaining a virgin or not really isnt relevent.

is a common “Protestant” talking point used to either dissuade people from becoming Catholic or to try and pull Catholics away from their own faith

If it works, it doesnt really say a lot about their faith. It doesnt really say much about the person using the arument either, unless they are using it as an example of false teachings and can show it to be false.

I have heard it with my own ears. I have “Protestant” and “Born-Again” friends too. This discussion is important because this question is much bigger, than simply whether or not “Jesus had biological brothers”.

Peace

I guess historically it would be important, for curiosity as well. But in the big sceme of things, its about as important as what is on my computer desk would be to you.

As far as Christs message goes, it really doesnt matter if Mary remained a vrigin or if Christ had biological siblings.

If such things effect your faith, then it would seem that you got the wrong message.

 

[Cleopas]

Hello believers,

The question here is, “Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?” Did you accidentally post on the wrong thread because none of the verses that you posted seems to have anything to do with this thread question, or am I missing something? Can you please clarify?

Peace

His application is clear.

The verses in question are prophetic of Messiah. They seem to state that the Lord became like a stranger to His brothers and an alien to His Mother’s children.

This passage serves to confirm the reading of such texts referring to his brothers and sisters as biological (half) siblings. The verse even declares them to be the children of His mother. That would serve to conclude that Mary had other children after Jesus.

This seems to confirm the disdain his siblings had for his ministry pre-resurrection (as recorded in Mark’s gospel).

Whether you agree with Him or not, Believer has made a strong biblical case. It seems rather definitive.

 

[Cleopas]

BTW, this is a forced poll. There should be an option for “not sure.”

 

[Elric]

I agree with Cleopas, there should be a “not sure” option as well as possibly a “doesnt matter to me/dont care”.

 

[Giovanni]

Well here is what I think, and someone stop me if I am wrong.
If Jesus is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, doesn’t that make Mary (BVM) the spouse of the Holy Spirit, God and God only had one Son.
Mary being pregnant without an earthly husband in Israel 2000 years ago, would have meant possible death or a life as an outcast, so why wouldn’t God provide for Mary a man such as blessed Saint Joseph to take care of the Mother of God.

 

[Cleopas]

Well here is what I think, and someone stop me if I am wrong.
If Jesus is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, doesn’t that make Mary (BVM) the spouse of the Holy Spirit, God and God only had one Son.
Mary being pregnant without an earthly husband in Israel 2000 years ago, would have meant possible death or a life as an outcast, so why wouldn’t God provide for Mary a man such as blessed Saint Joseph to take care of the Mother of God.

Joseph wasn’t simply her caretaker. He was her lawful husband. They were espoused, and per angelic instruction, when Joseph thought to put her away (divorce her), he went ahead and received her unto himself.

Mary was the wife of Joseph. Even if due to Joseph’s age and Mary’s role in the incarnation they were never sexually involved, she was none the less His wife. She was not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She is not the wife of Deity. She is however, the mother of God in the flesh.

 

[Jimmy_B]

His application is clear…

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

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hello Rightlydivide,

That is easy to answer, If they do not follow Jesus, then by His definition of “brother, sisters” they would not be His “brothers”, because they are not “followers of Christ”.

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

John 7:3-5

“His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
For neither did his brethren believe in him.”

Who are the brethren in these two passages?

Additionally, I believe that your comment, regarding the “step-children of Joseph”, that you allude to, is either from a rejected Gnostic Gospel or from an early Homily and that statement was not an Infallible statement. The Catholic Church has never declared, infallibly, that St. Joseph had stepchildren.
Of course they have not declared it infallibly. They have no clue because of the conflicting history surrounding their attempts to find a reason outside of what the Bible teaches. They cannot figure out which excuse to go with.
Origen raised the possibility about 180 years after the fact.

“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to
preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end”

“Some say” indicates the lack of a unified excuse yet.

Of course the earliest Christian history CLEARLY makes a distinction between the Apostles and the Lord’s brother James, as the Bible does as well. We know that Hegesippus, writing about the year 150 AD, as quoted by Eusebius solidifies the distinction clearly stated in the Bible:

Control of the church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James”

The same Hegesippus who also calls Jude, the brother of the Jesus “humanly speaking”.

But of course the clearest verse is from Paul himself, who knew firsthand that James was not one of the twelve:

1Cr 15:3-7 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve

: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

No writer of the first two hundred years had the silly notion she remained a virgin:
Irenaues states:

To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;

James is the Lords brother. The son of Mary and Joseph. One of a family of five boys and at least two girls. Nothing but a church who needed to change the clear teachings of the Bible and early Christian history to justify their belief system so foreign to the scripture would say so.

 

[The_Dweller]

There’s an interesting comment about Matt.1:25 in the Nelson Study version of the NKJV. It notes that the passage says that Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”, indicating that “Mary was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus.”

It also points out that Joseph couldn’t have had children from a previous marriage “for then Jesus would not have been heir to the Davidic throne as the oldest son of Joseph.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

There’s an interesting comment about Matt.1:25 in the Nelson Study version of the NKJV. It notes that the passage says that Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”, indicating that “Mary was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus.”

It also points out that Joseph couldn’t have had children from a previous marriage “for then Jesus would not have been heir to the Davidic throne as the oldest son of Joseph.”

Hello the Dweller and welcome to CAF,

Here is my short response to Matthew 1:24 -

Many “Protestants” incorrectly cite, Matthew 1:24-25, focusing on the word “until” to assert their belief that Jesus "must have had brothers”.

Matthew 1:24-25:
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.25 He had no relations with her** until** she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

'Till" (or Until) Mary brought forth her firstborn son… From these words, Helvetius and other early heretics against Christianity wrongly inferred that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other biological children besides, Jesus Christ. (Explained in more detail here )

Saint Jerome (340/42 - 420 AD) However, shows, examples, that this assertion by the Evangelist (heretics) were in error, noting that the manner of speaking, usual among the Hebrews, was to denote, by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. In Genesis 8:6 and 8:7. =

Moreover, we see in 1 Maccabees 5:54: also in Isaiah 46:4, God says, I Am “till” (or until) you grow old (also “even in your old age”).

This does not mean that God will cease to be, when they “grow old”.

Additionally, "they went up to mount Zion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace.​

That does not mean that they were slain after they had “returned in peace”.

Additionally, "God saith to his divine Son: “Sit on my right hand till (or until) I make thy enemies thy footstool.”

This does not mean that He remained seated from that point on. Moreover, shall He sit no longer, after his enemies are subdued?

Next post -

 

[Jimmy_B]

Saint Jerome proves using Scripture, examples, that God’s only begotten son, Jesus was also called the firstborn, or the “first begotten”, or the “first born King”.

Additionally, according to Jewish “law”, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; “Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that “openeth the womb” among the children of Israel,” etc… Exodus 13:2.

This brings us back to Matthew 1:25, where it says, "Joseph knew her (Mary) "not until “she bore a son.​

Many “Protestants” wrongly assert, based on a flawed interpretation of Matthew 1:25, that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after she bore a son, assuming that he (Joseph) did then have relations with Mary, after the birth of Jesus. There exists no credible evidence anywhere that supports this theory. This belief is in error, and not supported anywhere in the Bible.​

“Till” or “until”, or “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.”​

“Heos” (“until” in ancient Greek) refers to the past, never, the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means, “not up to that point” did she bore a son.

Therefore, Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. This is a central Christian belief, in the “Virgin Birth”, and Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

“Until”
Matthew 28:20
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."​

This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end the “age”, it means that Jesus will be with us always and forever.​

Luke 1:80 John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.”​

This does not mean that John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation. Obviously, he did not stay in the desert.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” (or until) she was eighty-four years old.​

This does not mean the Anna will cease to be a “widow”; the title of “widow” will forever apply to Anna.​

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.​

This does not mean that they literally remain in their seat, until He “made their enemies their footstools.”​

1 Timothy 4:13 “up to the point (or until) that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching.​

This does not mean; they did teach or preach “until after” Jesus returned to them.​

Genesis 8:7 the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” (or until) the waters dried from the earth.​

This does not mean that the raven continued flying 'back and forth" after the “waters dried”.​

Genesis 28:15 Know that I am with you; I will protect you wherever you go, and bring you back to this land. I will never leave you until I have done what I promised you."​

The Lord will not leave Jacob “up to the point that” (or until) he does His promise. Moreover, this does not mean that the Lord will leave Jacob afterwards.​

Deuteronomy 34:6 - but “up to the point (or until) of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place.​

This does not mean that, they will know where Moses was/is buried “after” or at a later date.​

2 Samuel 6:23 Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” (until) her death. =
=+
Obviously, Micah was not with child after her death.

1 Maccabees 5:54 not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace.

This does not mean that they were to be “slain” after they returned “in peace”.

 

[Jimmy_B]

We know that John was not the biological brother of Jesus and that the Virgin Mary was not John’s biological Mother, yet Jesus said to John, “Behold your Mother” and to his mother “behold your son” (John 19:27).​

From this point on, Mary became the “mother” of us all, as described in Revelations 12:1-17. Not a biological mother to us all, a spiritual “mother”.
+
Matthew 12:49, 50
"And (Jesus) stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”​

It is clear in Mathew 12:48, that the “followers of Christ” or “Christians” or “brothers and sisters in Christ”; or those who “do the will of God”, are Jesus’; “brother, sister and mother”. This is meant in the spiritual sense, or in the context of a “Christian family”, it is not biologically.
+
Note in Revelations 12:6-17;
+
“Then the dragon became angry with the woman (Mary) and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring (children), those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.”​

The “offspring” (or children) of Mary, are those who “bear witness to Jesus”; this means “Christians”. This does not mean that Mary is actually the biological mother of all Christians.
+
Mary here is described as, the mother of all Christians, just as she was, at the foot of the Cross; we know this is meant in the context of a “spiritual family”; as Christians, not that Mary is literally our biological mother.
*
Moreover, to except Christianity, is to except the “Virgin Birth”. If Mary were a “virgin” at the time of Jesus’ birth, this would mean that Jesus did not have any older brothers or sisters. He (Jesus) was the “First Born King”.
+
Furthermore, we know Jesus did not have any older brothers, because none were mentioned when Jesus was twelve and 'Found in the Temple" (John 2:1-25 ). Additionally, after this verse, Joseph is not mentioned again.
+
Surely, the stepfather of Jesus, Joseph, would have been at the Cross of Jesus, along side his spouse Mary, had he been alive. After all, Joseph loved Mary and Jesus and he is the one who took Mary and Jesus and fled to Egypt to protect Jesus (Matthew 2:13-23).

 

[Jimmy_B]

Moreover, Joseph was described as a good and “holy man” (Matthew 1:19) and Joseph and Mary, prior to the birth of Jesus, had already 'consecrated themselves to the Lord". At the time, this meant; a life of Chastity, much like the vow of celibacy, priests take today. Do you remember the stories in the bible, regarding the virgins and eunuch’s (Matthew 19:11-12)?
+
Mary was the sacred "vessel”, “tabernacle”, or “ark” which carried our Blessed Lord into this world. She was the new Eve, (the original mother of man). It was through Mary that God entered the world.​

Who would dare violate or desecrated such a pure, precious vessel, chosen from all time and all peoples.
+
Joseph knew who Jesus was and he also knew who Mary was, he knew how important she was. Joseph knew that the “Lord was with Mary”, that she was “FULL of Grace”, that she was “Blessed among ALL women” and that “All generations would consider her (Mary) blessed”.
+
In short, Joseph knew who Mary was at the time and what she would become, “the mother of all of us”; the mother whose descendants were those who would “bear witness to Jesus”.
+
Joseph was also fully aware that Jesus was the Son of God.
+
Would you expect anyone to use the “Ark of the Covenant” described in the Old Testament, for any other use, other than its original intended purpose? Of course not, that would be sacrilegious, and so is denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.​

Mary was the “Ark” which carried our Lord. This heretical and disrespectful denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which has no historical or biblical bases, is in error, preached in many “Protestant” Church’s; along with the false doctrine, that Jesus had Biological brothers, even though these false and heretical beliefs are in direct conflict with the Gospels!
+
Much of what has been written on this topic and much of this discussion, addresses the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic translation of “brother” into English, used through-out the Bible; meaning - cousin or another close relative, or kinsman or in the New Testament; “follower of Christ” and not persons sharing the same biological parents with Jesus.
*
Jesus referred to all of his close friends, kinsmen or followers of Christ as “brother(s)”, much like we today, consider ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, sharing the same Father, God.​

Yet, somehow today, “Christians”, who have no difficulty with today’s English word “brother” and the concept of the word “brother” having many different meanings, somehow have a problem with its use in the Bible.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Mary, the mother of Jesus; Try to think about the Blessed Virgin and not think about her son Jesus, it cannot be done. One cannot separate the two and neither can one think about the Gospels and not think about Mary, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.​

Starting in Genesis, to the nativity stories (in Matthew, Mark and Luke) and ending in the Book of Revelations, Mary is mentioned and referred to, repeatedly.​

One cannot think about Mary, without thinking about her son Jesus, yet there exist many who still have no respect for Mary and deny her Perpetual Virginity and reject Christian beliefs.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Revelations 12:17
17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

This verse refers to all Christians, or those “who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” as the offspring of Mary and obviously, Mary is not the biological Mother of all Christians. (See Rev, 12:1,5)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Your profile lists you as Catholic, yet you deny the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity?

Say it isn’t so!

Paul

It does, I am & I do - sorry.​

---

If Jesus did not have genuine siblings, that takes away half the point of the passages in which He contrasts His family relationships, with those which are created by doing the Will of His Father in Heaven.

 

[Rightlydivide]

From a website i cannot link due to forum rules;

Every time hoes hou appears in the Authorized Version of the New Testament, (the OT Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew original, is irrelevant) it DOES indicate the previous activity (or lack of activity in this particular case) stops or changes. :

Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. (hoes hou was translated “while” here)

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

Luk 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Act 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

Act 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

The best way to handle this argument though is just to look at the passage itself. “Joseph took unto him his wife” has the connotation of a normal marriage, which includes physical relations. Nevertheless, Matthew wanted to point out that he did not have relations with her “till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” This makes sense. It would offend most sensibilities to think of Joseph and Mary having relations while Jesus was in the womb. Therefore, Mary remained a virgin until Christ was born.

 

[Jimmy_B]

It does, I am & I do - sorry.​

If Jesus did not have genuine siblings, that takes away half the point of the passages in which He contrasts His family relationships, with those which are created by doing the Will of His Father in Heaven.

This is absolutely 100% false!

Jesus did not “contrast” His biological family with those who "do his will”, Mary did His will.

“Let your will be done onto me” - Mary

Show me in the Bible or anywhere, where she did not do God’s will. Mary was the mother of God and a faithful disciple. Jesus, in Mark and Luke and throughout the Bible, “showed a contrast” between believers and non-believers.

Are you implying that Jesus was disobedient or disrespectful and that He did not show honor to His own Mother. Do you believe that Jesus violated the Forth Commandment? Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to break the Law or to show others how to break the Law.

Your belief here is non-Christian, non-Catholic and anti-biblical.