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

[sola_scriptura]

I take it you claim that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek in its entirety. But the fact remains we do not know for sure. Indeed, there are scholars who beg to differ from you. One such scholar is the noted Semitic language professor Charles C. Torrey. In his work ‘The Four Gospels, a New Translation’ he contends that much of the gospels, the first fifteen chapters of Acts, and Revelation were translated into the Greek from Aramaic originals (Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew, a Semitic language.). And he is convinced that Luke translated his gospel from Aramaic sources (‘Our Translated Gospels’). He does concur that Paul originally wrote his epistles in the Greek, but David H. Stern (‘The Jewish New Testament’) adds that the apostle “drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought forms when he wrote.” The authors of the gospels did as well.

I’m aware of Aramaic (we should all be since it was the native language of Jesus). However, Luke certainly wrote in Greek, and it’s more than likely Paul did as well (most of his letter were addressed to churches in the Hellenic world).

The view you assert is a minority view – but I’ve heard it.

Other scholars maintain that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Aramaic - the language of Jesus - and then translated into the Greek for practical purposes, either by the author himself or by one of his disciples. Matthew did address the Palestinian Jews when he wrote his gospel. Since his text was to be extended to the wider community in the Roman empire, a translation into the vernacular Greek was required. We must not deny the rich Semitic flavour that permeates the gospels and epistles. Finally, ‘adelphos’ does have a wider meaning than uterine siblings, so ‘anepsios’ does not necessarily have to be used. The term ‘adelphos’ may refer to disciples or disciples who are relatives of Jesus as cousins. A cousin is a relative, but a relative is not necessarily a cousin. A cousin may be referred to as a relative. In Hebrew and Aramaic there is no word for cousin, so the more generic form ‘relative’ (‘adelphos’) may have been retained by the authors in their transalations to the Greek.

Scripture provides good evidence that Jesus had siblings (and is silent with regard to perpetual virginity).

Again – if we’re to assume perpetual virginity it makes more sense to think Joseph brought children into the marriage (I’m not sure why the RCC would object to this unless they would like to think Joseph was a virgin too).

With regard to your view regarding the de facto impossibility that the Church could be wrong in this (or any) matter I would remind you of Galileo; and the churches erroneous understanding of scripture (that it revealed the earth at the center of the universe), which led them to bring Galileo before the inquisition and force him to recant. Moreover, as far as I know beyond stating that these individuals who appear to be identified as Jesus’ siblings – were not the natural children of Mary; I do not think the church takes an official (infallible) position?

So the idea that they were cousins is a theory & one you may believe to be true, but still one that only represents your opinion and not official RCC doctrine (as far as I know anyway).

Blessings

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m aware of Aramaic (we should all be since it was the native language of Jesus). However, Luke certainly wrote in Greek, and it’s more than likely Paul did as well (most of his letter were addressed to churches in the Hellenic.

Even if this were true it still would make more sense to think if they were actually cousins the word for cousins would have been used when translating to Greek?

Scripture provides good evidence that Jesus had siblings (and is silent with regard to perpetual virginity).

So the idea that they were cousins is a theory & one you may believe to be true, but still one that only represents your opinion and not official RCC doctrine (as far as I know anyway).
Blessings

It’s certain Paul did, but uncertain with Luke.

The word for cousin doesn’t necessarily have to be used if adelphos is primarily referring to ‘disciples’ who happened to be relatives as cousins.

Playing on the words ‘adelphos’ and ‘heos’ isn’t exactly sound evidence. Scripture must be regarded in light of Apostolic Tradition from which the former had sprung. The early ECFs spoke of Mary as ever-virgin. The early Church was aware of this truth by way of oral tradition.

James (the less) Joses, and Judas (Jude) were the sons of Alphaeus (Cleopas) and Mary of Cleopas, making them Jesus’ cousins. Simon (the Zealot) was a Canaanite, not a Nazorean; so he could not have been our Lord’s brother.

Pax

 

[sola_scriptura]

It’s certain Paul did, but uncertain with Luke.

Most agree Luke wrote in Greek (and since of course Luke the Evangelist was Greek and a gentile physician it would make sense that he wrote in his native language).

The word for cousin doesn’t necessarily have to be used if adelphos is primarily referring to ‘disciples’ who happened to be relatives as cousins.

No one is saying the sons of Alphaeus were Jesus’ brothers?

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

The James and Judas described here are not the sons of Alphaeus (I’ve never heard even the RCC make this claim). Moreover, another important (often ignored fact) is that John said even Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5), which might explain their absence at His execution.

 

[rinnie]

Nope. Jesus was born of the Blessed Mother. She died a Virgin. That proves that she had no other children. Now Joseph was old when he married the Blessed Mother, thats why he didnt want to Marry her. Thats also why you didnt see Joseph when Jesus died.

Now Yes Joseph did have other children before he married the Blessed Mother. But Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph so he had no biological brothers or sisters.

Unless you are going to say we all came from God. And Of course God would have the dna of Jesus, which would make of us biological. Thats the only way!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Nope. Jesus was born of the Blessed Mother. She died a Virgin. That proves that she had no other children. Now Joseph was old when he married the Blessed Mother, thats why he didnt want to Marry her. Thats also why you didnt see Joseph when Jesus died.

Now Yes Joseph did have other children before he married the Blessed Mother. But Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph so he had no biological brothers or sisters.

Unless you are going to say we all came from God. And Of course God would have the dna of Jesus, which would make of us biological. Thats the only way!

Can you prove this elaborate theory?

 

[rinnie]

Sola-Scriptura, When Joseph married Mary he knew she was already pregnant. Just because the bible say Joseph’s son you must remember Joseph married Mary in secret. Just because Joseph knew he didnt broadcast it, if so why marry in secret, Mary would have been stoned to death.

Alot of people didnt know at the time that Jesus was the Son of God. They did believe he the son of Joseph.

The only people who really knew before it was revealed to the world were the chosen ones.

As far as Jesus’s brothers and sisters we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, Jesus said that at the foot of the cross.

Thats why they believed Jesus had half brothers and sisters, because of Joseph not Mary.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sola-Scriptura, When Joseph married Mary he knew she was already pregnant. Just because the bible say Joseph’s son you must remember Joseph married Mary in secret. Just because Joseph knew he didnt broadcast it, if so why marry in secret, Mary would have been stoned to death.

I’m not using the omission of discussion about Josephs children to bolster any particular assertion. You’re the one making the affirmative assertion – therefore the burden rests on you to prove it.

There is no evidence in scripture pointing to the perpetual virginity of Mary, so all I asked for is where this doctrine comes from?

Alot of people didnt know at the time that Jesus was the Son of God. They did believe he the son of Joseph.

The only people who really knew before it was revealed to the world were the chosen ones.

This is a red herring – not relevant to the issue at hand. Obviously the Gospel authors did know Jesus was not Joseph’s son?

As far as Jesus’s brothers and sisters we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, Jesus said that at the foot of the cross.

Thats why they believed Jesus had half brothers and sisters, because of Joseph not Mary.

The context doesn’t allow for this rendering (and you yourself refuted it with your theory that these were Josephs children – making them step-siblings, which would at least fit the text).

 

[rinnie]

I’m not using the omission of discussion about Josephs children to bolster any particular assertion. You’re the one making the affirmative assertion – therefore the burden rests on you to prove it.

There is no evidence in scripture pointing to the perpetual virginity of Mary, so all I asked for is where this doctrine comes from?

This is a red herring – not relevant to the issue at hand. Obviously the Gospel authors did know Jesus was not Joseph’s son?

The context doesn’t allow for this rendering (and you yourself refuted it with your theory that these were Josephs children – making them step-siblings, which would at least fit the text).

But you must remember not all is written, The bible tells you that itself. Now we have written scripture, tradition, and oral . If you ever read up on the Blessed Mother you would understand more.

But when you read in scripture it is repeating what the People said, Not what the authors are saying. And you can either take it two ways they didnt know or they would not believe. It would make more sense the people didnt believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Think about it, would make more sense what Jesus said huh, About how you own town wont believe you, but strangers do. See what i mean. (sorry not exact scripture but you get my point)

 

[rinnie]

Can you prove this elaborate theory?

You would not believe it anyway. Because even though the bible says not all is written. if its not in the bible its not true, I can tell by your name. But the Church has Oral teachings, and Tradition that you dont agree with. So no matter what i say you wont believe it anyway. So its a loosing battle. But there is alot about the Blessed Mother thats not in the bible. Thats the Church believes and teaches us. And number one is Mary Died a Virgin, and was taken up to heaven. Her body never touched the ground. But again you wont believe that either, because its not written in the bible.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Rinnie:

I do not discount oral tradition completely (as long as it doesn’t contravene scripture – which perpetual virginity doesn’t necessarily do). However, I do know where Marian dogma began, it was primarily with Ireneaus, who IMO was wrong.

For instance, Irenaeus believed that Jesus lived to old age; and the significance of His becoming flesh was so that He could experience all stages of human life (including old age). He is the one who also first made the typology between Mary and Eve.

The typology between Mary and Eve isn’t wrong in itself – it’s the way Irenaeus structured it that is fallacious & I contend it was because of his poor grasp of Christology.

Theology is an extremely complex topic. There are so many doctrines enumerated by Scripture and each is related to the whole. Therefore an error in understanding any single doctrine will permeate throughout ones theology. This is what happened to Irenaeus.

 

[rinnie]

Well thats good to know anyway. I understand that there is alot we disagree on because alot of things we are taught on Faith. But no disrespect if you could read more on the Blessed Mother you would understand so so much more. There is a web-site, I cant remember the top of my head the name, But you can talk to monks. They really teach alot, You have to remember they are in prayer for years on end. I really think sometimes you really need to shut yoursellf off from the outside world to get a better understanding of what God wants us to know.

But anyway when I would get stumpted I would ask them. They helped me alot.

One thing i remember they told me one time is sometimes no matter how you try some people just wont except the truth.

But some will, in time, and thats good too.

Im not trying to push my beliefs on you either, but its just what i believe to be true, and I do like to share, other times it just gets me in big trouble. But God Bless. Just My 25 cents worth. Because 2 or 10 cents wont get you anywhere today.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well thats good to know anyway. I understand that there is alot we disagree on because alot of things we are taught on Faith. But no disrespect if you could read more on the Blessed Mother you would understand so so much more. There is a web-site, I cant remember the top of my head the name, But you can talk to monks. They really teach alot, You have to remember they are in prayer for years on end. I really think sometimes you really need to shut yoursellf off from the outside world to get a better understanding of what God wants us to know.

But anyway when I would get stumpted I would ask them. They helped me alot.

One thing i remember they told me one time is sometimes no matter how you try some people just wont except the truth.

But some will, in time, and thats good too.

Im not trying to push my beliefs on you either, but its just what i believe to be true, and I do like to share, other times it just gets me in big trouble. But God Bless. Just My 25 cents worth. Because 2 or 10 cents wont get you anywhere today.

You’re a good apple Rinnie

 

[Good_Fella]

I understand that – it must makes more sense to think it would have been used to denote cousin (since a commonly used word for cousin existed).

No one is saying the sons of Alphaeus were Jesus’ brothers?

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

The James and Judas described here are not the sons of Alphaeus (I’ve never heard even the RCC make this claim). Moreover, another important (often ignored fact) is that John said even Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5), which might explain their absence at His execution.

So if my cousins were coming to pay me a visit, I would have to necessarily say “My cousins are going to visit me,” instead of “Relatives of mine are coming to visit me”? That’s begging the question.

With regard to the identities of James, Joseph, Judas (Jude), and Simon, please see my reply #543 on the thread ‘Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot from How and Why…Pray to Mary’ in the Apologetics Forum.

With regard to John 7, 3-5: Adelphos (brothers) can be used interchangeably.

His brothers (close apostles) therefore said to him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples (less close and sceptical followers) may behold the works you are doing.”…For not even his brothers (the less close and sceptical disciples in Judea) were believing in him.

The “brothers” in verse 5 refer back to the distant and sceptical “disciples” in Judea in v.3. The close disciples (brothers) of Jesus are advising him to go to Judea to satisfy the doubts of his less faithful disciples (brothers) there. You fail to notice the conjunction “for”. Let’s keep in mind that in the same gospel we learn of followers of Jesus who deserted him after he spoke of his flesh as real food and his blood as real drink. So these brothers you mention cannot be Jesus’ uterine brothers as you wish to believe. Like I said, your evidence is unsound and unconvincing to say the least.

PAX

 

[rinnie]

Sola-Script, If i could say one thing, and not upset you, the reason it is so hard to understand the bible is when you read scripture you cant just read it for what it says. Let me explain, you must first go back in that time era, and know the lingo.

Here is an example. If I said to you today I got my *** burned at work today. Talk about a pain, my boss was a real pain.

Now hundred and hundred of years from now if people read that and took it for what its worth, they would argue she got burned. at work.

See what i mean. Like in the NT they called everyone sisters, amd /brothers etc. And no offense to anyone but the African Americans have called eachother bro and sister for ever. Hispanic have their own lingo. Alot of people do.

So when you read the bible to really understand it, you have to figure out the time, what did the words mean then, then you have greek, Latin, there is so much to know,

It would takes years just to know the era, and words to even begin to read and understand things.

Then you have to have the gift of the Holy SPirit to help you understand what God was telling us. Remember he said he speaks to us in parables. We see things as this world, Even the Apostles didnt understand what he was saying. Thats why he had to teach them, they really didnt understand until Jesus left and left them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Hope i dont upset you but thats why we are taught the bible, then we can read it, so we fully understand what God is trying to tell us.

Then when you really know it and understand it God talks to you in his own way, and it becomes even more clear.

But trust me no one knows all of the bible its years and years of study.

Even the Pope doesnt know everything he only know what God reveals to him. And God has alot of things he hasnt revealed yet. But when he wants us to know he will tell us.

 

[sola_scriptura]

So if my cousins were coming to pay me a visit, I would have to necessarily say “My cousins are going to visit me,” instead of “Relatives of mine are coming to visit me”? That’s begging the question.

With regard to the identities of James, Joseph, Judas (Jude), and Simon, please see my reply #543 on the thread ‘Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot from How and Why…Pray to Mary’ in the Apologetics Forum.

With regard to John 7, 3-5: Adelphos (brothers) can be used interchangeably.

His brothers (close apostles) therefore said to him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples (less close and sceptical followers) may behold the works you are doing.”…For not even his brothers (the less close and sceptical disciples in Judea) were believing in him.

The “brothers” in verse 5 refer back to the distant and sceptical “disciples” in Judea in v.3. The close disciples (brothers) of Jesus are advising him to go to Judea to satisfy the doubts of his less faithful disciples (brothers) there. You fail to notice the conjunction “for”. Let’s keep in mind that in the same gospel we learn of followers of Jesus who deserted him after he spoke of his flesh as real food and his blood as real drink. So these brothers you mention cannot be Jesus’ uterine brothers as you wish to believe. Like I said, your evidence is unsound and unconvincing to say the least.

PAX

My evidence is unsound??? Huh … the New Testament repeatedly states brothers, brothers, brothers, and brothers? It’s not my evidence, if you want to argue the point talk to God, it’s His Bible?

To boot even RCC translations say brothers, why? If the RCC was sure it meant cousin they would use the word cousin – so if you think it should be cousin — well write a letter to your bishop

Yes – even the Catholic Bible uses brothers, so don’t you think the Holy Spirit would have ensured the word for cousin was used rather than brother if they were actually Jesus’ cousins? How about that for proof? As if the Holy Spirit is incapable of choosing one word over another – or didn’t realize that we would be having this debate today?

The Spirit guided the Bible authors to use brother, so it’s brother. The context doesn’t allow brother as in brethren, so it’s not brother as in brethren. Jesus either had biological brothers or step-brothers. The Spirit said it so I believe it — it’s really that simple for me!!!

 

[AlessandraRose]

What about the “not sure” option?
I am a Catholic and I am “not sure” due to me not being their.
So my mind is open to the question but I could never say either way.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I really don’t get it… The verse folks are citing in favor of Jesus’s biological brothers is:

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matt. 13:55).

The folks in this verse are asking three questions.

1. Isn’t this (Jesus) the carpenter’s son?
2. Isn’t his (Jesus) mother’s name Mary?
3. Aren’t his brothers (Jesus) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Devil’s Advocate Alert

Why should the second sentence of the verse be taken literally while ignoring the first?

The folks in this verse seem to know Jesus and his family, Correct? They know is mother’s name to be Mary. They know his brother’s names to be James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. The also know Jesus to be the carpenter’s son.

This all sounds like a perfectly normal human family. Does it not? A human father, a human mother and human brothers.

Why then should anyone consider Jesus anything but the biological son of a carpenter?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I really don’t get it… The verse folks are citing in favor of Jesus’s biological brothers is:

The folks in this verse are asking three questions.

1. Isn’t this (Jesus) the carpenter’s son?
2. Isn’t his (Jesus) mother’s name Mary?
3. Aren’t his brothers (Jesus) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Devil’s Advocate Alert

Why should the second sentence of the verse be taken literally while ignoring the first?

The folks in this verse seem to know Jesus and his family, Correct? They know is mother’s name to be Mary. They know his brother’s names to be James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. The also know Jesus to be the carpenter’s son.

This all sounds like a perfectly normal human family. Does it not? A human father, a human mother and human brothers.

Why then should anyone consider Jesus anything but the biological son of the carpenter?

 

[rinnie]

Wildgraywolf, So okay then what are we saying here? they dont know that Jesus is the son of God, or they deny that he is.

Now to say that they are correct in saying that he is Joseph’s son (biological) which means by blood would deny that Jesus is the Son of God.

Now Jesus would not teach them anymore because they would not believe in him.

Now from that I would say that when the truth was revealed to them they would not believe it. Now what im not sure of is if I am right on this when was it revealed at that moment. Or when Jesus was born, little or teaching in the temples.

But IMO that is proof that Jesus is not the bio son of Joseph because there is no blood. Unless of course we are going back to we are all created from one God.

 

[Matariel]

My evidence is unsound??? Huh … the New Testament repeatedly states brothers, brothers, brothers, and brothers? It’s not my evidence, if you want to argue the point talk to God, it’s His Bible?

You’re the one who is denying God’s Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (this is what St.Paul calls it) and its proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

To boot even RCC translations say brothers, why? If the RCC was sure it meant cousin they would use the word cousin – so if you think it should be cousin — well write a letter to your bishop

Yes – even the Catholic Bible uses brothers, so don’t you think the Holy Spirit would have ensured the word for cousin was used rather than brother if they were actually Jesus’ cousins? How about that for proof? As if the Holy Spirit is incapable of choosing one word over another – or didn’t realize that we would be having this debate today?

The Spirit guided the Bible authors to use brother…

“Brother” was the word used for cousin in Hebrew and Hellenistic culture, so it could mean cousin.

And why don’t Catholics translate it as “cousins”?

That’s simple: because we don’t know whether or not these were cousins or step brothers from his earthly father Joseph.