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

[Joero]

In John 19: 27 the BVM lived together with John the Apostle in his home. The emphasis of this verse would bring us to think that the BVM had no other offspring at all, except Jesus. If there was/were, one would think that the BVM was a bad mother or vice versa because none of her offspring would take care of her after the death of Jesus on the cross. But, Jewish tradition in biblical times can be noted that they were so kind to their mothers, especially the widows. Take for example Tobit 4: 3-4, and in the New Testament times, James 1:27.

The 2nd reason proving that Jesus has no biological brothers is the prophecy in Ezekiel 44: 2 “and the Lord said to me. This gate will stay closed and will never be opened. No human being is allowed to use it, because I, the Lord God of Israel, have entered through it. It is to remain closed.”

What particular gate was this? In Ezek.46:1 the gates would be open during sabbath. In Isa. 45: 1 and Isa. 60: 11 the gates will always be opened. In Nehemiah 7: 3 all gates will be opened.
In Rev. 21: 25 all gates will always be opened in the temple of God.

Did the early theologians were right that this particular gate refers to the womb of the BVM?

 

[rinnie]

Sunwater, No offense but the Blessed Mother didnt teach Jesus anything. Everything that was taught to Jesus came from God. Dont get me wrong earthly things yes, But the BM knew that she was giving birth to the Son of God and she had enough faith in God to be totally obedient to God. That is why she is the best example in the world for us. She never questioned God.

Jesus was teaching great leaders when he was a kid. His knowledge came from no one but God.

There is no way she had any other kids if she did, why everytime in the bible it always refers to her as The mother of Jesus or Jesus’s Mother. Its always separate. Why did it not say Jesus’s Mother and her children. Especially in those days ink was supposed to really be expensive. Every word count. No where in the bible does it say The BM and her sons. That is why Jesus could not have biological brothers (as we consider them in todays world) its impossible because Jesus came from God, not Joseph, and Mary had no other children.

Look at it this way, if she did what would be the big deal, she was married to Joseph then. So why hide it. What would be the big deal.

Joseph was very old when he married the Blessed Mother, thats why he didnt want to marry her. The elders picked Joseph but he said no, i cant, I am too old, I cant give her a child. Think about it. Where was Joseph when Jesus was on the cross. Why wasnt he with the BM. How could a man be that faithful to God and then leave his wife and child. He didnt, he loved Jesus. Joseph was dead. Thats why you only heard about him in the early years of Jesus. But the BM till the end.

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Please examine Numbers 30: Validity and Annulment of Vows

Mary was destined to procreate offspring for generations to come, but not of a biological nature:

For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the ‘firstborn’ of many brothers.
Romans 8, 29

We should keep in mind that Joseph and Mary appeared to be a normal married couple with a son. Their hidden relationship could in no way cause a social scandal.Their private arrangement was a matter strictly between them and God.

PAX

 

[Sunwater]

Also, remember that in that time period men did not write about woman. Mary could have had a dozen daughters and we would not have known about it. Jesus could have had all daughters, as well.

 

[sola_scriptura]

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

I strongly disagree. Clearly Jesus is responding to someone – who is saying you’re mother and brothers are outside – when He states who are my “mother AND brothers”? (remember His family is still standing outside)

Stretching His hand toward His disciples Jesus then states – here are my “mother AND brothers” – there is no way to logically extract brothers from its context and twist the reference to brothers to mean disciples. To rely on that theory to debunk the idea that these people (always called brothers) are indeed Jesus’ relatives is fallacious. Frankly it does more harm to the credibility of the Catholic view to take such a position.

The first thing this reveals is that Jesus had a family and most likely siblings (or at least cousins). The context is crystal clear. In addition Jesus makes a distinction between His temporal family and spiritual family. All of those in Him are His spiritual family. There is no ambiguity here whatsoever.

Moreover, I would even say this verse – together with the many other verses that reference Jesus’ brothers (like Paul identifying James as Jesus’ brother, while Paul refers to other disciples as just that – disciples, is also decisive). The fact that the word for brothers is used over and over, and cousins are identified in scripture using language like the son of my mothers sister (and never the word that can also mean brother) is also telling. I think the evidence from scripture overwhelmingly supports brothers.

Moreover, while the distinction Jesus draws (between His spiritual and temporal family) may create small problems for Catholic Mariology – for instance juxtaposing the role of Mary from temporal mother to a spiritual co-redeemer, it’s not decisive on that point (nor do I view it in itself as a smoking gun). The RCC position relies heavily on Jesus telling John that Mary is his mother (at the cross). I’m not sure though how the RCC would explain this disengagement Jesus makes between His spiritual and temporal family (and this is not the only case of Jesus doing this). However, again this is where the speculation begins and where I stop.

Frankly the more I look at this issue I think we do have enough language in Scripture to say, with a fairly comfortable level of certainty, that Jesus had siblings. Now the question turns on whether they were step-siblings or natural siblings – again this is where the (wild) speculation begins & where I stop.

Without evidence to the contrary I would simply trust the veracity of the EOC theory that they were step brothers (although I admit I still have doubts).

Frankly I’ve always had a problem with Irenaeus (where Mariology in way it’s understood today began), being he was wrong in other critical areas of doctrine – namely his grasp of Christology. He felt the significance of Jesus coming in the flesh was to experience the stages of human life – including old age (Irenaeus believed Jesus lived until old age – and was not killed in His late 20’s or early 30’s). Before Irenaeus no elaborate theory of Mary’s role in the economy of salvation had ever been pondered – though earlier church fathers did mention her and they did adorn her as the mother of our Lord and blessed among women (which hopefully few would argue with).

One of these days I will undertake a critical examination of Irenaeus. He’s also the one who coined the term “apostolic succession” as we understand it today. However, until then I really have no further commentary to offer.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Also, remember that in that time period men did not write about woman. Mary could have had a dozen daughters and we would not have known about it. Jesus could have had all daughters, as well.

I’m not sure if that view can be used to support Mariology. There were many Biblical women who entire Old Testament books were written about. Sarah is discussed extensively in Genesis. Obviously these women lived prior to the Second Temple period – but there’s no reason to believe society was more chauvinistic during the Second Temple period as compared with earlier periods in Jewish history.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

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.

The Jewish tradition of the “Temple Virgin” was addressed in another similar thread. Gail did an excellent job of explaining it:

In the Letters of St. Paul there is a passage regarding virgins. There weren’t convents for those who dedicated themselves to the Temple and preserved their virginity as we have now. But there were provisions for such persons. Even St. Paul remained a virgin. If you look in the 1st Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 7 verses 36 to 38, you will see instructions of how a man is to behave towards “his virgin.” I have heard that when a woman became a Temple virgin, as was Mary, she would remain in the Temple until a certain age, or for a certain time, then she would be sent to live in a home to do the labors of a wife, but remain only espoused to the man who took her in. There was no consummation and marriage as we understand it, didn’t fully happen. It was a convenience. Her sustinance was provided for in exchange for her services as a mother to orphaned children, or as a comfort for an aging man and for many other reasons. I don’t expect Justasking to accept this, but it is why our Lady was espoused to Saint Joseph. He needed a woman around the house and it was known that he was righteous enough to be trusted with a Temple virgin. Not a very hard stretch for those who wish to see.

Here are some verses to think about: 1 Cor. 7:36-38 — 36 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

And there you have instructions for men whose households included the Temple virgins and their care!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Matariel]

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.

Mary was probably a Temple virgin, in which case she would have been celibate her whole life.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t believe Jesus had any biological siblings because if he had he would not have given his mother to John to take care of.

I do not need to read beyond this post because this says it all and is what I believe too.

 

[Sunwater]

From what I understand of the Temple Virgins is that they were young girls hand chosen by God himself through a convoluted ceremony involving the children climbing huge temple stones. Once chosen, these girls were educated at the temple apartments and were reserved for son’s of the high preists or for family’s which would bestow wealth on the the temple and the girl’s family. It was felt that an educated woman would produce son’s of great importance and intelligence since God himself had chosen this girl to be educated.
They were refered to as virgins because it was the solemn responsibility of the Temple to keep them virgins until there time to take their place in a wealthy household or as the wife of the son of a Temple priest, a perk given to the highest ranking preists for their service. Also, these girls had to have clear and direct lineage in one of the twelve families/tribes. The most important task the gorls had to learn was to weave and make sure that they produced at least one set of clothing for their husbands to wear within the Temple.

 

[reteeks21]

I do not need to read beyond this post because this says it all and is what I believe too.

Well, it would make sense for Him to give her to John since Scripture makes it clear that, at the beginning, Jesus’s brothers didn’t have any use for him.

 

[Sunwater]

Also, regarding taking your virgin— a girl was betrothed to a girl. This was a legal marriage but the man would leave to prepare a home for his bride. At the time when she was of proper age (after she began menstruating) and he had secured a home for her to raise her children, a formal ceremony would take place when she would be taken crying form her mothers breast (symbolically, of course) The husband was not supposed to have relations with his bride before taking her but this was common and accepted though frowned upon. So as the verse says, he should wait to have his virgin but if he can’t, well then, it’s OK.

1 Cor. 7:36-38 — 36 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

The “one that does not marry her” line I think refers to the man who chooses to have relations with his virgin before the ceremony. If a man has confessed or is found to have had relations with his betrothed virgin he is deamed married and must immediately pay 50 shekels to his now father in law.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Mary was probably a Temple virgin, in which case she would have been celibate her whole life.

That’s incorrect. Jewish Temple virgins would only serve in that role for a few years – after which they were married and had normal marital relations with their husbands. Under Jewish tradition virginity was not an honorable estate (having many children was considered a blessing & barrenness a curse). So it would have been an exception to the norm for Mary to have remained a virgin under even these circumstances. That being said – this isn’t a decisive factor, just another bit of evidence pointing away from the Catholic rendering of Mary. The fact is it would have difficult to imagine Mary could have remained a virgin. It’s likely she would have at least had to claim she was barren to her neighbors. Sometimes childbirth itself can cause damage to female reproductive organs, so she would have been able to claim this credibly. However, that would have made her a liar under Jewish law – which is problematic to the Catholic view of her sinlessness.

Even in a court of law enough circumstantial evidence will eventually overcome the bar of reasonable doubt (not that any of this evidence would be admissible, since of course it’s double hearsay and 2,000 years old, I’m just saying assuming scripture and our understanding of Second Temple Jewish custom is true then the Catholic rendering of events is a difficult proposition).

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Jewish tradition of the “Temple Virgin” was addressed in another similar thread. Gail did an excellent job of explaining it:

The view that Joseph needed someone trustworthy like a Temple virgin to watch over his household and perhaps children from a previous marriage is impossible. Scripture tells us that upon finding out that Mary was pregnant Joseph was ready to end their relationship.

This is theological gymnastics at an Olympic level; but I only award it the silver.

 

[rinnie]

Sola/script, The person that told you that Brother meant disciples really is right, And it can be proven but it will take alot of work on your part but you can find it.

brethren, brother, disciples (is all in scripture in the same place).

Here is what I mean, my Dad told me that if you want to find the closest to scripture you can you have to go back to the oldest bible you can find. He told me everytime a new bible is written (the author) can change the name ( which is closer to todays understanding) but isnt always accurate.

But like he said we can only go by what bible we read. For instance you have the KJ version, see how some words are different, they mean the same thing, but as in this case see how we can see it different.

He said every time a bible is written some words are lost by translation.

 

[rinnie]

Here is an example

Acts 15:23 The apostles and presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch… (now this is the new American Bible.

Acts 15:23 The brethren who are apostles and presbyters send greeting to the brethren of gentile order in Antioch…(this is a pretty old Bible called Catholic Action Edition

Acts 15:23 The apostles and elders, your brothers, send greetings of gentile birth in Antioch…New Jerusalem Bible.

Now this is 3 Catholic bibles.

So According to the oldest which is the second Acts i posted

Brethren means brother, Apostles, Presbyters, elders.

See what I mean.

My Dad said that is why the bible is not completely accurate. It is word of Christ, but you must remember it is translated by Man.

And you know man gets his fat fingers in something and it becomes Human Mistakes. (should of had a women just kidding)

But my Dad said that the problem is the older a bible is the more accurate but the downfall is it gets harder to understand. Thats why when the newer they get words change to help us to understand it better, but like this instance change a word and you can change the whole meaning of the sentence.

Hope that helps.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sola/script, The person that told you that Brother meant disciples really is right, And it can be proven but it will take alot of work on your part but you can find it.

brethren, brother, disciples (is all in scripture in the same place).

No one is saying that sometimes brother isn’t used to refer to disciples – however, in the case of the siblings (or perhaps cousins) of Jesus the context makes that impossible. I just posted a long response to Good Fella on this topic, so I won’t repeat myself (if you’re interested here’s a link to the post). The brother as disciples theory is impossible as I explain.

 

[Matariel]

The view that Joseph needed someone trustworthy like a Temple virgin to watch over his household and perhaps children from a previous marriage is impossible. Scripture tells us that upon finding out that Mary was pregnant Joseph was ready to end their relationship.

This is theological gymnastics at an Olympic level; but I only award it the silver.

Huh? Of course… they all would’ve thought that he had gotten a temple virgin pregnant! This only solidifies the Catholic point.

 

[rinnie]

No one is saying that sometimes brother isn’t used to refer to disciples – however, in the case of the siblings (or perhaps cousins) of Jesus the context makes that impossible. I just posted a long response to Good Fella on this topic, so I won’t repeat myself (if you’re interested here’s a link to the post). The brother as disciples theory is impossible as I explain.

Okay but how can you throw out cousins, And here is why. It could have been cousin, or near relations because that is what brother means in Hebr. and Aramaic style. And we know Jesus spoke in both languages. Thats why I must agree now after reading it cousins or relations is the best choice.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Okay but how can you throw out cousins, And here is why. It could have been cousin, or near relations because that is what brother means in Hebr. and Aramaic style. And we know Jesus spoke in both languages. Thats why I must agree now after reading it cousins or relations is the best choice.

I didn’t say anything about cousins – just the brethren (as in fellow Christian or disciple) idea is impossible given the context of the passage from Matt. I cited.

I personally think siblings (actual brothers) is more likely – but I can only prove the “brethren” idea to be untrue. So whether these brothers mentioned are cousins, step-brothers, or natural brothers is up for debate.

None of this does harm to the core Catholic idea that Mary remained a virgin. Frankly all I really know about the history of Mariology is that Irenaeus was the first to develop a thorough Mariology. I would like to study more about the history of Mariology to learn where the Catholic ideas came from (since scripture along with Second Temple Judaic customs would seem to at least weigh against the Catholic view).

I really would avoid commenting beyond simply to say brothers cannot mean disciples – until I do more research.

Blessings