Jesus’ Siblings in scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost4words
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lost4words said:
I always defend Jesus as having no brothers or sisters. But, how can one argue this passage:

Mark 6:3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense[a] at him.
Click to expand...
if one wants to really up the numbers look at this

Rev 12:17
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[c] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
  • footnote [c] = Mary
(for space) To answer your question, Jesus had bothers ? :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Something for you all to consider. Yes the Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic however the NT is written in Greek. Just as in Hebrew there is no word specifically for virgin Isaiah 7:14 the Greek LXX translates it as specifically as virgin. Now consider Jeremiah 32:8 where the author is conveying cousin by saying “his uncle son” even though there is no Hebrew word for cousin we can say cousin. Since there is a way to be specific about a “cousin” relationship why weren’t they conveyed in this manner if indeed they were cousins? To me it’s plain they were indeed actual brothers and sisters. 8 Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, ‘Please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.
 
Last edited:
But again, if he had brothers why did he entrust the care of his mother to John? That would be highly unusual in that culture, would it not?
 
I don’t know why because scripture does not say. Your logic that there is no way to convey a cousin relationship versus actual siblings is lacking based on the scripture I provided. The plain and reasonable reading of scripture is actual siblings. You’re making it harder than it has to be with no biblical basis for your position.
 
Last edited:
The biblical basis has been spelled out by many others already, and you didn’t really answer my question.
 
Scripture does not specifically say why. What would like to say? You do know Greek has a word for cousin that the author would have used? Strongs 431. anepsios

Also the brothers and sisters are connected to the antecedent of Joseph and Mary.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who argues that Mary, the mother of the Incarnate God, somehow became a regular woman again after the Nativity and engaged in carnal relations, impugns not only Mary but degrades the divinity of Christ himself. Further, Joseph was fully aware of who Jesus Christ is, and to suggest that Joseph could even think of sexual relations with the mother of the Incarnate God is a gross insult to Joseph as well.
It’s amazing how some Protestants fail to understand that it is not only reasonable, but logical and theological that Mary remained a virgin.
 
Last edited:
You are entitled to your opinion. I think otherwise that it does not matter.
 
It matters a great deal to those who understand why Joseph, Mary, and Jesus Christ are rightly called the Holy Family.
 
The attitude that it really doesn’t matter if Jesus had siblings when He gave His mother to John, comes from a lack of understanding of the Jewish religious and cultural traditions of that time. Many of those same traditions remain, today. The care of the widowed mother is left to the eldest son, first. If he is not available (already dead), the responsibility falls to the next younger son. It was a huge deal to not care for your own mother if she was a widow, and you were the one responsible for her, according to Jewish tradition. That would be absolutely unheard of at that time.
 
Gorgias said:
That would depend on your understanding of the meaning of the word in Greek for “until”, wouldn’t it?
Click to expand...
This is a good point. It is an Hebraism that does not give any indication of what occurs after the “until”, such as:

2 Samuel 6:23 “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.”

It is clear from the context here that “until” does not imply that Michal had any children after that day!!!
 
jericho777 said:
Something for you all to consider. Yes the Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic however the NT is written in Greek.
Click to expand...
Yes, these are important considerations. This is why the Church did not want the Sacred Writings to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced them. Once the writings are torn from their foundation, the interpretation of them falls into error.
jericho777 said:
I don’t know why because scripture does not say. Your logic that there is no way to convey a cousin relationship versus actual siblings is lacking based on the scripture I provided. The plain and reasonable reading of scripture is actual siblings. You’re making it harder than it has to be with no biblical basis for your position.
Click to expand...
Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

The proper understanding of Scripture must occur with it’s context. The Gospel of Matthew was specifically written for Jews, by a Jew. One can best understand it when one understands Jewish language and culture. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church, by whom it was penned, preserved, promulgated and canonized.

How is it that you have a better understanding than all the Scripture scholars who have preceded you, including the original Reformers?

You are mistaken, we are not claiming that it is impossible to construe this language to mean cousin. They could be stepsiblings, or any near relatives too close for marriage (everyone in the clan too close in blood to marriage is a near kinsman).

Modern “bible christians” do reject the ancient understanding passed on to us by those that knew Mary personally, and substitute their own ideas instead. Of course we agree that this can be done, and is done. What is lacking is an adequate rationale for rejecting what the Church has understood and believed for 1800 years.

Since Catholics receive the faith from the Apostles, rather than extracting it from the pages of the text, we do not have to “justify” our understanding of it.

The Scriptures reflect the faith of the Apostles, they were not the Source of it.
 
Last edited:
The two Mary’s. Mary was a common name.

• Mary, wife of Joseph, is the mother of Jesus.
• Mary, wife of Clopas, is the mother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon.
• Mary the mother of Jesus is the SISTER of Mary the mother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon.
• James, Joses, Jude, and Simon are therefore, Jesus’ cousins.

John 19: 25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

Correlate to this

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.
 
Sean77 said:
The Koine Greek for brother αδελφοσ (adelphos) literally means from the same womb.

.
Click to expand...
.
.
You are correct. It is a Greek compound word that translates as you stated above.
.
The best way to prove the Catholic position is true is to show how that same Greek word above is used in a way that is clearly does not mean from the same womb. There are two examples which are listed below. They are very strong arguments because they are examples of the Bible using this word in a way that does not match a literal translation
.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/brothers.html

.
The Catholic argument that Jesus gave Mary to John and John to ma
Mary is a good argument but it is not a foolproof argument as Protestants who use a rebuttal to that. So it is better use the argument I stated above.
The notes as they stand from the NAB as listed above do not work as they stand. Too much information is left out. Protestants are not going to trust that something is true just because a Catholic says it’s true. We have to find a non-catholic source to document that Philip and Herod were brothers. Second the Protestant could contend that they were half brothers because they had the same mother but different fathers. So we have to prove that no that is not the case. They had the same father but different mothers.
.
Therefore they were not from the same womb
.
.
There are other examples of Brothers been used to describe spiritual relationships that obviously you’re not from the same ro
Womb.
but Catholics are forced to admit that if they’re talking about spiritual Brotherhood and not physical Brotherhood.
.
And so these Protestants contend that when the Brothers Are Spiritual then
" from the same womb" argument does not apply because of the metaphor but they will insist that the from the same womb does apply to all physical Brothers.

So the Protestant will still contend his argument is valid until showing the above information.
.

John
 
Last edited:
jericho777 said:
Something for you all to consider. Yes the Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic however the NT is written in Greek. Just as in Hebrew there is no word specifically for virgin Isaiah 7:14 the Greek LXX translates it as specifically as virgin. Now consider Jeremiah 32:8 where the author is conveying cousin by saying “his uncle son” even though there is no Hebrew word for cousin we can say cousin. Since there is a way to be specific about a “cousin” relationship why weren’t they conveyed in this manner if indeed they were cousins? To me it’s plain they were indeed actual brothers and sisters. 8 Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, ‘Please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Rev 12:17
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[c] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

Obviously, “offspring” aka children, aka sons and daughters, is NOT meant literally from Mary’s womb.

So …
 
Last edited:
So important to remember you are reading a translation from another language. The word ‘brothers and sisters’ is the best English equivalent but that does not mean it is the literal translation.

Many others have explained this in more depth but my advice would be to not argue Scripture. 1. I don’t feel it’s respectful TO Scripture to engage in ‘Scripture wars’ but 2. It is fruitless as any passage can be twisted to mean anything. 3. We are arguing a translation of a very nuanced language.

It’s far more fruitful to take the entire Bible in context along with looking at how the Church Fathers interpreted things as they were closer to source.
 
I see the strength of scripture for believers in a much stronger light than Catholics view it as. Sacred Tradition leads to scripture being regarded as the lesser. When the Torah was written it was the standard everything else was measured against. The word Torah means instruction. I want to know what scripture really means and am willing to move in that direction.

Hmmm you agree with the reformers LOL? Seriously I have heard good reasoned teaching on this subject and don’t agree with the church.

The bible can be understood and known. It was written for our benefit. Romans 15:4
Not all past church leaders hold to modern views about Mary.

Augustine of Hippo: “He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother.

Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary must have been a sinner because she stated “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

Clement of Alexandria: “The word, Jesus Christ, alone was born without sin.”

I do not claim to be smarter than any other I seek the truth. Reasoning with the evidences at hand leads me to conclude Mary had real children. I feel some Catholics feel uneasy because they see the same thing as I but are afraid of eternal judgment if they were to think otherwise.
 
I think it’s dangerous to consider the English translation as superior. Much gets missed and at times translators make mistakes.

We must never forget the Bible was written BY the Church. The Church existed before the entirety of Scripture. So yes, sometimes I do feel tradition is one step above it. Nothing in Scripture can contradict what the Church teaches as it was literally written by and compiled by the Church. So if you think it contradicts Church teaching you may be misunderstanding Scripture.

But you seek truth and continue to be open to God’s word. I am quite sure He will correct you when you are ready.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top