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

[Wildgraywolf]

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.

What I’d really like to understand is why some posters take the second part of the second sentence of the verse literally as proof Jesus had biological siblings.

and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

But not take the first sentence of the verse with equal literalism.

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

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 a carpenter?

Exactly!

This verse cannot and should not be used as proof that Jesus’ mother had other children.

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.

This is my understanding:

They were questioning where Jesus, a man from their hometown, got His wisdom and ability to do miracles. Because they didn’t have faith He did not perform miracles for them. The only intent we need to know about their questions is that they lacked faith. I suppose we could argue that they were insinuating that God wasn’t His father or that His mother wasn’t a virgin but we can’t know for sure. All we do know is that they didn’t have faith.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly!

This verse cannot and should not be used as proof that Jesus’ mother had other children.

This is my understanding:

They were questioning where Jesus, a man from their hometown, got His wisdom and ability to do miracles. Because they didn’t have faith He did not perform miracles for them. The only intent we need to know about their questions is that they lacked faith. I suppose we could argue that they were insinuating that God wasn’t His father or that His mother wasn’t a virgin but we can’t know for sure. All we do know is that they didn’t have faith.

Go it. So actually regardless if they were told Jesus is the Son of God or were not told it really doesnt matter because they dont believe it anyway.

And doesnt that blow the whole protestant view that Mary had other kids out of the water, because they deny Christ anyway, so how could you take anything they say for the truth. For they dont know the truth, or wont accept it. (im not talking about protestants here i am talking about these men)

And lets face it, If they dont believe that Jesus is NOT the son of Joseph, and Jesus is the Son of God, How in the world would they believe that the Blessed Mother is a Virgin. I am starting to see now how protestants are getting mixed up.

 

[rinnie]

Okay here is my final answer. And i can prove it. There is no way Jesus had biological brothers, and here is my proof.

Jesus was born of the Blessed Mother, she had no other kids but Jesus, Joseph was not the Father of Jesus. Joseph did have other children. But not with the Blessed Mother, which means there is no way that he could have any brothers with his dna. The only way you could tie any half/step etc would have to come from the Blessed Mother and thats impossible. She only had Jesus. Thats my final answer! Lets see if i got it! So I cant prove he did, because HE DIDNT!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Okay here is my final answer. And i can prove it. There is no way Jesus had biological brothers, and here is my proof.

Jesus was born of the Blessed Mother, she had no other kids but Jesus, Joseph was not the Father of Jesus. Joseph did have other children. But not with the Blessed Mother, which means there is no way that he could have any brothers with his dna. The only way you could tie any half/step etc would have to come from the Blessed Mother and thats impossible. She only had Jesus. Thats my final answer! Lets see if i got it! So I cant prove he did, because HE DIDNT!

Hey Rinne:

That’s just a position statement – not proof?

 

[sola_scriptura]

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.

“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.

Cool – at least you say you don’t know? So I’m not sure why the strong attempt to defend this doctrine when you in fact are not sure if its truth or falsity?

How about this – I’ll say it’s remotely possible Jesus had cousins rather than brothers or step-brothers? You say it’s more than remotely possible but you still don’t know – so our differences are pretty narrow (on issue of whether scripture reveals step-brothers or cousins). Obviously I keep open the possibility that Mary may have bore other children after Jesus (which is something you will not entertain), but that in itself doesn’t really touch on whether scripture refers to cousins or brothers (since brothers could mean step-brothers). Again, I know you will categorically reject the possibility that Mary could have had children – so we’ll have to agree to disagree (since neither of us will change one anothers minds). Perhaps I might be thought of as a heretic (especially given that I’ve now had ample exposure to RCC doctrine on this board & know what you assert to be the truth); but that doesn’t bother me. I remain unshaken.

Frankly, I’ve already discussed this issue so much on this board it seems like a wasted exercise to go on and on about it. I’m not here to win converts over to my view – just discuss theology. I’m not interested in changing your mind about Mary; and I’m not interested about Martin Luther’s character failings or the character failings of Popes or clergy men or anyone for that matter – just theology.

I’m a theology geek quite frankly – not one who enjoys getting into discussions that lead to outright hate speech (not that you have done this in any respect – but others have). So I think I’ll leave Mariology alone for now. I like stuff where there is clear unambiguous scripture to form a basis for discussion. I find tradition too remote in time and unreliable for my own personal taste. Not that I seek to diminish the importance of tradition – it’s just that with regards to certain topics the tradition is even ambiguous. So then the argument turns to bitter speculation (and being the Protestant minority I wind up having to defend myself against an onslaught of opposition – I just don’t have the time for this).

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

Hey Rinne:

That’s just a position statement – not proof?

Okay, but why not? No where in the bible does it state Mary had other Children. IT is always said Jesus’s brothers and sisters. Never has it said Mary the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of James, Joseph etc. Anytime it says Mary its always the Mother of Jesus. It always apart. Even at the foot of the cross Jesus’s brothers, his mother. It has never said Mary’s Children. She is always refered to as ONLY Jesus’s Mother. Now Yes Jesus does say at the foot of the cross to the disciple JOHN behold you Mother behold your son. But that is when Jesus left her to all of us.

The only other way I can figure it out is they are going to say Jesus a decendant of David… which would eventually tie us all back to Adam and Eve and we are all related.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

For us RCs, the Virginity of the BVM is a matter of doctrine and of dogma - because for us there are three “moments” in her virginity, which enjoy differing degrees of theological certainty: she is virgin​

• before child-bearing
• in child-bearing
• after child-bearing
  So Protestants will agree with us in part, but not necessarily in all parts; & for various reasons, such as the witness of Scripture, or its absence, OT typology, etc.

The doctrinal status of the virginity of the BVM is not the same for us as for others - so Evangelicals (for instance) are less bothered by not being able to prove their position, than we might be: for them, a decision either way is not essential to Christian orthodoxy, whereas it is essential for the CC’s understanding of the Faith: they can thus afford to be more relaxed about this set of three doctrines. The one they do tend to emphasise very strongly, is the Virginal Conception of Christ - that is, the second doctrine, with the emphasis on Who is conceived rather than on who conceives.

I hope that is accurate & makes sense

 

[sola_scriptura]

Okay, but why not? No where in the bible does it state Mary had other Children. IT is always said Jesus’s brothers and sisters. Never has it said Mary the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of James, Joseph etc. Anytime it says Mary its always the Mother of Jesus. It always apart. Even at the foot of the cross Jesus’s brothers, his mother. It has never said Mary’s Children. She is always refered to as ONLY Jesus’s Mother. Now Yes Jesus does say at the foot of the cross to the disciple JOHN behold you Mother behold your son. But that is when Jesus left her to all of us.

The only other way I can figure it out is they are going to say Jesus a decendant of David… which would eventually tie us all back to Adam and Eve and we are all related.

Hey Rinnie:

I think I’ve studied Mary more in the last couple of weeks than ever in my life. I’ve learned quite a bit about the exegesis behind the RCC and Protestant views of Mary. More than anything I learned Catholics and at least some Protestants (with the exception perhaps of Lutherans & Anglicans) are not going to agree about the role of Mary in the economy of salvation – perhaps ever.

Frankly, as I said above, I usually don’t like discussing such heated topics. You’re a great person to discuss things with – but not all share your fair mannered temperament (perhaps including me). So when I make a statement about Mary I wind up having to respond to a dozen or more heated objections & it’s a bit too time consuming quite honestly (and some times I wind up responding in kind to attacks & then things really get messy). So I think I will leave Mariology alone for a while.

I’ll always enjoy discussing things with you though – but on topics where the scripture is unambiguous and straight forward. As a Calvinist I always like defending the doctrines that distinguish us from the broader Christian world – like the TULIP doctrine. Frankly even Calvin didn’t object to a sinless or perpetually virgin Mary – he just objected to veneration (or anything that resembled worship of anything but God). We don’t even reject the common creeds, such as the Nicene or Apostolic. Overall I’m not sure if I agree with Calvin’s Mariology – but it’s the sort of thing that can only be argued by exegesis. There is no passage saying Mary was a sinner or that she was not a sinner. No passage saying she remained a virgin even after giving birth to Christ, but no passage saying she did not remain a virgin.

Frankly for the most part I can live with most of the creeds (if not all of them accept for the seventh ecumenical council). My true objection is concerning two things. First, infallibility (and the infallible declarations of the Pontiff that followed); and the churches departure from the theology of grace and predestination of Augustine (to what is now a Semi-Pelagian view).

As a Presbyterian we receive the creeds – and view our church as “catholic” (part of the universal church of Christ). You will disagree. It’s odd because other churches who broke with Rome (such as some Old Catholic Churches) retain apostolic succession according to Rome (and their priests are recognized as having “valid orders”), while I don’t think Rome will recognize the clerical orders of clergy from churches like the Anglican Catholic church (even though I doubt they have any disagreements at all with Old Catholics in terms of doctrine). In fact even where the Old Catholic Church ordains Anglican clergy the RCC will still not recognize their succession. Frankly, given this tension I doubt unity will ever be had – unfortunately?

Blessings

 

[rinnie]

sola/script. Thats okay I understand. Dont worry we are all human and I like you can sometimes let people get to me. And I also loose my temper, but thats okay. Sorry though, hey another time/ another thread. Go have a nice cup of tea and relax. Todays about over, tommorow will be better… Take Care God Bless.

 

[Good_Fella]

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!!!

The author would not use the Koine Greek word for cousin if he meant ‘disciples’. Whether these disciples were cousins is not the author’s concern. If I were referring to a cousin of mine as a member of my hockey team, I would call him my team mate.

There are passages in the New Testament where the word “brother” is used to refer to “disciples” or “apostles”. John 7: 3-5 is one instance. Here are other occasions. Note how the word “brother” is used interchangeably.

“But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
Luke 22, 32

Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholemew and Matthew; James, son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (disciples or followers in general).
Acts 1, 13-14

The apostles and the brothers(‘adelphoi’:disciples outside the circle of the twelve) throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Acts 11:1

Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
Acts 13, 38

The Church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenecia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad.
Acts 15, 3

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8, 29

“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12, 50

Isaac was the firstborn among many brothers of the Old Covenant, as Jesus was the firstborn among many brothers of the New Covenant. Sarah’s only child was born free from slavery; Mary’s only child was born free from the slavery of sin. Neither Matriarch bore children in slavery. I consider this typology the best scriptural evidence in support of Mary’s perpetual virginity by focussing on the Spirit of the Word. You are obsessed with the word “brother” because you primarily focus on the letter of the word.

The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Jesus’ alleged siblings as the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. I’m Roman Catholic, so I hold the Church’s position that these siblings are cousins of Jesus , not his step-brothers. Neither do I believe Joseph was previously married. The Church approved private revelations to the Blesseds and the Saints confirm Joesph was a bachelor and had no other children, and that these alleged siblings of Jesus were in fact his cousins.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

The author would not use the Koine Greek word for cousin if he meant ‘disciples’. Whether these disciples were cousins is not the author’s concern. If I were referring to a cousin of mine as a member of my hockey team, I would call him my team mate.

Hello again GF:

I will only say this much regarding Marian dogma.

Matthew 12:47-50 (Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) [48] But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. [50] For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

The context of this verse simply does not allow for the “brethren” (as in fellow Christians and disciples) theory. In fact here Jesus distinguishes between His temporal family and His spiritual family, plain & simple. So here brothers can only mean: cousins (the least likely theory), step-brothers (just as plausible as natural brothers), or of course natural brothers. Honestly my objection to venerating Mary or intercession has little to do with any of this. We only have “one” mediator. The idea of a co-mediator, in whatever creative way it’s couched, at a minimum dilutes this very plain and straight forward revelation.

That being said – I’m trying to stay away from Mariology. Not that I mind discussing it, but frankly on a Catholic forum every statement I make pertaining to Mary winds up attracting a multitude of objections; and some not so kind. I like the discussion we’re having on Augustine, predestination, and grace much better (it’s much more interesting to discuss topics where we can draw from dozens of passages and the whole of scripture – rather than discussing the role of Mary in the economy of salvation, given scripture doesn’t focus on her much).

Honestly most of this topic turns on bitter speculation. I’m not here to turn people to my view – just discuss theology with others who know theology (as you do). I admit it – I’m a theology nerd who loves God and Christ – not a blood hungry zealot

 

[Good_Fella]

Hello again GF:

I will only say this much regarding Marian dogma.

Matthew 12:47-50 (Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) [48] But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. [50] For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

The context of this verse simply does not allow for the “brethren” (as in fellow Christians and disciples) theory. In fact here Jesus distinguishes between His temporal family and His spiritual family, plain & simple. So here brothers can only mean: cousins (the least likely theory), step-brothers (just as plausible as natural brothers), or of course natural brothers.

Verse 49 identifies the brothers referred to in v.47: “Here are my mother and my brothers” (disciples). Jesus stretches out his hand towards the disciples who had just arrived with Mary, acknowleging their arrival after it was announced.

PAX

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Ok, let’s look at this logically. Mary, was she Jewish? Yes. Mary, was she devout? Yes. Mary, was she blessed, absolutely. Mary, would she have obeyed the tenants of Isreal according to their marriage traditions? Hmmm, I my opinion she would and if this is so then, by the tenants of the Jews, that have lasted as long as the traditions of the CC, Mary, as a dutiful wife and as a devout Jew, would have had at least one other child, as it is the custom of the Jews to have at least two children, one male and one female. Look it up for yourselves. I don’ think Mary would have for gone this expectation of her.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hello again GF:

I will only say this much regarding Marian dogma.

Matthew 12:47-50 (Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) [48] But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. [50] For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

The context of this verse simply does not allow for the “brethren” (as in fellow Christians and disciples) theory. In fact here Jesus distinguishes between His temporal family and His spiritual family, plain & simple. So here brothers can only mean: cousins (the least likely theory), step-brothers (just as plausible as natural brothers), or of course natural brothers.

Verse 49 identifies the brothers referred to in v.47: “Here are my mother and my brothers” (disciples). Jesus stretches out his hand towards the disciples who had just arrived with Mary, acknowleging their arrival after it was announced.

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
Luke 11, 28

PAX

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Verse 49 identifies the brothers referred to in v.47: “Here are my mother and my brothers” (disciples). Jesus stretches out his hand towards the disciples who had just arrived with Mary, acknowleging their arrival after it was announced.

You twisted that one so much you almost broke it.

 

[Angelos]

Ok, let’s look at this logically. Mary, was she Jewish? Yes. Mary, was she devout? Yes. Mary, was she blessed, absolutely. Mary, would she have obeyed the tenants of Isreal according to their marriage traditions? Hmmm, I my opinion she would and if this is so then, by the tenants of the Jews, that have lasted as long as the traditions of the CC, Mary, as a dutiful wife and as a devout Jew, would have had at least one other child, as it is the custom of the Jews to have at least two children, one male and one female. Look it up for yourselves. I don’ think Mary would have for gone this expectation of her.

I can guess where these traditional and cultural expectations will lead you soon. The starting point of your presumptions is the same as Dan Brown’s. He thinks Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene because Jesus was Jewish and had to obey the divine commandment to procreate.

Jesus’ miraculous conception broke all rules and went against all the cultural regularities of the Jewish thought at that time. Matthew teaches that Joseph married Mary not because he wanted to conform to the social and cultural codes of his nation, but because God asked him to do so.

If Mary had other kids (at least one), where were they when Jesus went to Jerusalem with His parents? Why is the scripture silent on the infancy of those other children that Mary supposedly bore after Jesus?

 

[Angelos]

Honestly my objection to venerating Mary or intercession has little to do with any of this. We only have “one” mediator. The idea of a co-mediator, in whatever creative way it’s couched, at a minimum dilutes this very plain and straight forward revelation.

Jesus is the only mediator between God and mankind, AMEN. We never claim that Mary is a mediator.

Look at it this way: God is our Father, and no one else can be our Father in the same sense. However, Jesus and Paul refer to Abraham as the father of believers. Do you really think that the references in the NT make Abraham a partner to God’s fatherhood?

 

[Good_Fella]

You twisted that one so much you almost broke it.

Oh, no! Here comes another one.

 

[Sunwater]

There is a theory of the agnostic lines that states that Mary was a perfect medium who taught Jesus the seven gifts of mediumship (automatic writing, healing, etc.) As a woman she was denied her true passion of performing these types of miracles and helping others. She knew that the only way her dreams could be fulfilled would be to have a son who would be even greater than she. She freely chose this and prayed for the holy spirit to grant her a son with the gifts of spirit. Supposedly, for these gifts to be given there was direct intercession by the holy spirit. This direct intersession is what is refered to as the virgin birth, the Christ was a virgin inception by and of the holy spirit. The man, Jesus, was born the old fashioned way as were his brothers and sisters.
Chastity in Christianity came much later in history. You have to remeber that even Jesus would have been expected to bear children, especially as a Rabbi, or be deamed forsaken by God. When a teacher or stranger came to a village he was greeted and asked two things before being extended hospitatity. The first was about the stangers lineage and name and the second was whether he had any children, particularly son’s. That was the true test of moral character back then. Do you know what would happen to a 30 year old Rabbi who came into your village to preach the good news and it turned out that he wasn’t even married? It just wasn’t part of life then.
You have to ask yourself: if in that time everyone believed in creating son’s of Israel, why wouldn’t Mary want to have more children? Why wouldn’t Jesus have children? God mandated to the Hebrews that you procreate or be foresaken.