How many "brothers" did Jesus have?

[Porknpie]

Let’s mix things up a bit.

First:
"Luke 2:6-7 ‘So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…’ The Greek word in this verse is ‘prototokon.’ meaning ‘first-born’ but does not describe an only child. The word for ‘only-born’ is ‘monogenes’ as in Luke 7:12, when describing a person who was ‘the only son of his mother.’

I understand ‘prototokon’ does not deny only born, but Luke 7:12, Luke found it important to call out this was the woman’s only son. Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.

Second:
So we know that the Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21,‘adelphos’ meaning explicitly brother. The word for cousin is ‘exadelphos,’ meaning ‘from brothers or cousin.’ When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, Matthew used the word ‘adelphos,’ not the word ‘exadelphos.’

‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’.

I’m not arguing for or against if Jesus had brothers and sister. From Catholic apologetics, I only curious how are these difficulties with the scriptures are handled.

Dr, here’s a short catholic.com tract on the subject above. Link is here.

 

[drblank1]

Dr, here’s a short catholic.com tract on the subject above. Link is here.

Thanks Porknpie. That really doesn’t cover the questions above. Is there any other litureature/apologetics that address Matthew and Luke? It is no small matter they were not more precise in Jesus’ relationship to Mary (only vs. first) and his family (cousins vs. brothers and sisters).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Let’s mix things up a bit.

First:
"Luke 2:6-7 ‘So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…’ The Greek word in this verse is ‘prototokon.’ meaning ‘first-born’ but does not describe an only child.

It certainly CAN describe an only child.

In exodus (cf. Ex 13:2), the “first-born” was to be consecrated to God. And the first-born is to be redeemed at one month old (Numbers 18:16). This title of “firstborn” is given to a child without knowing if there are ever going to be subsequent children.

Question for you: If you were an only child in Egypt at the time of the Passover, and you did not follow the actions prescribed by Moses, would you be killed or not? After all, the plague was to the “first-born”.

The word for ‘only-born’ is ‘monogenes’ as in Luke 7:12, when describing a person who was ‘the only son of his mother.’

I understand ‘prototokon’ does not deny only born, but Luke 7:12, Luke found it important to call out this was the woman’s only son.

The importance was because she would have no one to take care of her, and thus she was doubly-distressed.

Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.

This is quite the argument from silence.

Second:
So we know that the Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21,‘adelphos’ meaning explicitly brother. The word for cousin is ‘exadelphos,’ meaning ‘from brothers or cousin.’ When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, Matthew used the word ‘adelphos,’ not the word ‘exadelphos.’

When the people were speaking, they were speaking in Aramaic. Matthew quotes them.
A quotation should be as literal a translation as possible.

‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’.

There are many mistakes that have been made in interpreting scripture. You could ask why it was not clearer in many instances. The real answer, though, is that it needn’t be: Jesus was clear enough that He would institute a Church which would be empowered to determine these answers.

 

[Good_Fella]

Let’s mix things up a bit.

First:
"Luke 2:6-7 ‘So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son…’ The Greek word in this verse is ‘prototokon.’ meaning ‘first-born’ but does not describe an only child. The word for ‘only-born’ is ‘monogenes’ as in Luke 7:12, when describing a person who was ‘the only son of his mother.’

I understand ‘prototokon’ does not deny only born, but Luke 7:12, Luke found it important to call out this was the woman’s only son. Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.

Luke’s intention wasn’t to emphasize that Jesus was her only child. First-born son is to be understood what the Jews meant by the term in their religious observance in view of Jesus having been consecrated to God.

Second:
So we know that the Greek word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21,‘adelphos’ meaning explicitly brother. The word for cousin is ‘exadelphos,’ meaning ‘from brothers or cousin.’ When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Christ’s brothers were with them, Matthew used the word ‘adelphos,’ not the word ‘exadelphos.’

‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’.

Why would Matthew worry? He originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew for Jews who would have understood what the Jews in his narrative meant by the word brothers, especially since the written word proceeded from and with the spoken and preached word. The Greek translation preserves the idiomatic usage of the term in the Hebrew language and its Aramaic usage by the native people who are speaking in the gospel. This is a literary device known as diction. The Jews in Palestine didn’t speak Greek and had no word for cousin.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

It really doesn’t matter how many brothers Jesus had. The Bible isn’t clear about that.

What the Bible IS clear about, however, is that none of them were Mary’s children.

There is no verse which states that any of these brethren were “the children of Mary”.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[JonNC]

It really doesn’t matter how many brothers Jesus had. The Bible isn’t clear about that.

What the Bible IS clear about, however, is that none of them were Mary’s children.

There is no verse which states that any of these brethren were “the children of Mary”.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Further, there is no place in scripture where it is implied that Jesus had blood siblings, not at the temple, not at His crucifixion, no where when blood siblings would have been apparent.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Further, there is no place in scripture where it is implied that Jesus had blood siblings, not at the temple, not at His crucifixion, no where when blood siblings would have been apparent.

Jon

:yup:

 

[drblank1]

It certainly CAN describe an only child.

That is not the question. I didn’t say it couldn’t mean only child. Luke, being a master of the Greek language, seemed to be quite imprecise in this instance when he was not for the other.

This is quite the argument from silence.

“Argument from silence” implies ignorance by the author. Are you implying that Luke and Matthew were ignorant on the importance of Mary’s virginity as Catholicism applies to the Christian faith?

 

[drblank1]

It really doesn’t matter how many brothers Jesus had. The Bible isn’t clear about that.

What the Bible IS clear about, however, is that none of them were Mary’s children.

There is no verse which states that any of these brethren were “the children of Mary”.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Not the point. But just to be fair, there is no verse which states that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[PRmerger]

That is not the question. I didn’t say it couldn’t mean only child. Luke, being a master of the Greek language, seemed to be quite imprecise in this instance when he was not for the other.

Excellent.

So we are agreed that Firstborn only indicates the child who has opened the womb. It does not indicate that there was a secondborn or a thirdborn or…

Remember when the Angel of Death passed over the Israelites and killed their firstborn sons? Do you think a family that had only one child said, “Well, I need not slay a lamb 'cause I have only one son; he’s not my firstborn until I have a second!”

No way! All Israelites knew that their FIRSTBORN–whether he was an ONLY child, or first among many–would need to be protected.

 

[PRmerger]

Not the point. But just to be fair, there is no verse which states that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Right.

And remember, using *your *paradigm of the Bible Alone, then we cannot know, can we, whether Mary had other children?

And thus your saying that she did is ADDING to Scripture.

 

[drblank1]

Right.

And remember, using *your *paradigm of the Bible Alone, then we cannot know, can we, whether Mary had other children?

And thus your saying that she did is ADDING to Scripture.

PR, I am not auguring if Jesus has bothers and sister. You are off topic from my post. Please go back and read my original post. You don’t need to come at it from a Catholic-defensive paradigm.

Look at my questions posed as a deep dive into scriptural study and understanding.

Good Fella was the only poster so far that attempted to directly address my questions posed. Thanks Good Fella.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I am not auguring if Jesus has bothers and sister. You are off topic from my post. Please go back and read my original post. You don’t need to come at it from a Catholic-defensive paradigm.

Look at my questions posed as a deep dive into scriptural study and understanding.

Good Fella was the only poster so far that attempted to directly address my questions posed. Thanks Good Fella.

My apologies, then! I am indeed late to the party.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella was the only poster so far that attempted to directly address my questions posed. Thanks Good Fella.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is not the question. I didn’t say it couldn’t mean only child. Luke, being a master of the Greek language, seemed to be quite imprecise in this instance when he was not for the other.

Quite the contrary. He was very precise. Jesus was the first-born of Mary.
That is the technical term for it.
And they ALL knew that this did not imply that there need be a second-born.

Just because modern people don’t understand the term doesn’t mean it is imprecise.

“Argument from silence” implies ignorance by the author.

No, it does not.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

PR, I am not auguring if Jesus has bothers and sister. You are off topic from my post. Please go back and read my original post. You don’t need to come at it from a Catholic-defensive paradigm.

Look at my questions posed as a deep dive into scriptural study and understanding.

Good Fella was the only poster so far that attempted to directly address my questions posed. Thanks Good Fella.

Now, I realize that you only responded to the first half of my post #66, but your non-response doesn’t mean that I didn’t address your questions.

Do you have any follow-up to the second half of my response?

 

[Erich]

Not the point. But just to be fair, there is no verse which states that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The following post, from another thread, pretty much sums it up for me…

                  *

Tantum_ergo:

Also, consider that Jesus is the Son of God. He is the legitimate Son of God.

Did God stop being the Father of Jesus? No. Since God is the legitimate father and Mary the legitimate mother, the only way for Mary to take ‘another’ husband without commiting adultery would be if God wasn’t really the legitimate Father or that He ‘divorced’ Mary.

OR, if Mary had REALLY been planning to marry and consummate the marriage with Joseph, what does that make God? It makes God the kind of God who like the Greek and Roman gods beds human women, has ‘half-human/half God’ offspring and then casts the woman aside as not ‘good’ enough for Olympus. It makes God into the kind of God who takes Mary to be the mother of HIS child and CUCKOLDING Joseph.

Is it FAIR of God to take a woman who was promised and intended to marry another man, impregnate her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, I’ve used her the way I want, NOW you can have her after me?” Is it fair to the relationship of a man and woman who planned to have ‘regular’ sexual relations to have the woman raising (as the man’s) the child of ANOTHER man and expect their lives to ‘go on as planned?’

Is it fair of God to play around with the love of a man and woman, which is what it would have been if Mary had planned to have a ‘sexual’ marriage with Joseph?

Is it fair to JESUS for God to use His mother as an ‘incubator’ and then leave Jesus as a huge reminder to Joseph, always feeling ‘apart’ from the ‘other kids’ who would be both Mary’s and Joseph’s? To put Joseph in the shoes of having to raise "the son of God’ and have that child (who was not Joseph’s ‘own’) always be considered as the oldest son, the heir, while the younger boys who ‘were’ Joseph’s ‘own’ would not have their true rights as the REAL ‘sons’ of Joseph?? How do you think those children would feel about their brother? Would they even really believe He was the son of God, and not some ‘lie’ foisted by Mary onto their father? How would they view their mother --as somebody who tried to lie and cheat and raise some ‘bastard’ above them and take their legal rights and status, take all the attention?

NOT exactly the kind of family you would think that God would want for any child, let alone that by your thinking God would have PLANNED to cuckold Joseph, rob Joseph’s ‘own’ children of their legal rights, and put them in the position of being party to what would have been lies (Jesus was NOT ‘the son of the carpenter’ or the ‘oldest child’, Mary would have been viewed as a slut, the children’s status even when the truth ‘came out’ would have been even WORSE than before). . .

Whereas by the grace of God and the testimony and the grace accorded by the Holy Spirit who LEADS US TO ALL TRUTH – the understanding of the truth --that God did NOT cuckold Joseph, that there were no ‘other children’ who would be robbed of their rights and would be made miserable–we have a situation where Joseph is shown to be a righteous, chaste, and WORTHY foster father to the ONE child for whom he freely takes on responsibility ‘on earth’. . .we have Mary’s love not divided between ‘God’ and ‘earthly’ but fully given to God and SUPPORTED by Joseph–we have Jesus not overshadowing and robbing his brothers and sisters or being unfairly elevated, but living with a father and mother who could devote themselves to GOD and His Son without anything coming between.

It’s so much more reasonable a picture–and it’s also the picture that has been presented through Christianity over the last 2000 years and endorsed by greater thinkers than any of us here –

in fact, the idea that Joseph and Mary were sexually ‘intimate’ was not even a concept which the first PROTESTANTS believed as is shown by the fact that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is very much a ‘modern’ idea based on the hypersexualization of our culture along with the often unconscious desire to try to make Mary (and Joseph, and even Jesus) into more ‘human’ people, i.e., people ‘just like us’. . .and to dismiss as ‘absurd’ ideas such as perpetual virginity, continence, and giving ‘all’ to God instead of living a ‘normal’ life and giving Him anything ‘left over’ when and if it suits us too. . .

As I said earlier, the Bible is an excellent TOOL but it is not self-interpreting nor is it our AUTHORITY. There is a lot the Bible never tells us (what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 30, for example), and that’s because it doesn’t HAVE to. The Church has the authority to teach (and the Church’s teachings will not CONTRADICT Scripture and in fact the perpetual virginity does NOT contradict Scripture in any way). . .but it doesn’t HAVE to tell us WHY, WHEN, WHERE and HOW as if it were discussing a movie of the week about Mary’s perpetual virginity, complete with touching backstory and ‘guaranteed proof from eyewitness reports’. The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, it’s in the catechism, it’s in the teachings spread back over the centuries because that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted to have us taught.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Mark 3:35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Many?

Hopefully!

 

[PRmerger]

Thus, one would conclude that if Luke understood the importance of Mary to the Christian faith as Catholics believe her to be, that he would have made this explicit distinction.

‘Adalphos’ can mean cousin, but you would think Matthew knowing the importance of Mary as Catholics believe and having the option to be very clear as to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, he would have ensured there was no confusion to the identity of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and used ‘adelphos’

I think the above 2 points could be addressed by this response: the above suggest that St. Luke and St. Matthew understood that their writings would not need to make “explicit distinctions” since they understood that a Church, and not their writings, would serve as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Jesus did not commission either of them to write anything. Rather, he commissioned a Church.

And that’s the explanation for why the inspired writers made no effort to make some point of doctrine “explicitly distinct.”

They understood that their writings would not be a complete compendium of the faith, but rather a channel of the Word of God to be guarded and interpreted by His Body, the Church.

 

[drblank1]

The following post, from another thread, pretty much sums it up for me…

                  **

This is a most “entertaining” read. I will most definately share with others.

I would normally ignore such a post, but this can’t be passed.

The huge error of the post is that anyone would consider that Mary was somehow married to God and that if she was married to Joseph that would have made her an adultress. And the BIGGEST: to compare the blessing of the Holy Spirit on Mary to the same act as a Roman god have physical sex with a human woman. Most disturbing indeed!!!

And just for the record, the view that Mary was not a virgin is not a modern idea. If you look at the early chruch writings, they were divided. Those who viewed Mary not a perpetual virgin: Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.