Jesus’s Brothers

  • Thread starter Thread starter C.Longinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Greek word in the Bible referring to Jesus’ brothers translates closer to a close friend who is viewed as basically a brother. Not actual genetic brotherhood but a close bond of that nature
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
40.png
C.Longinus:
Again, this shows that Jesus had no older siblings.”
Click to expand...
Who claims that Jesus had older siblings?
Click to expand...
Apparently the writers of the article believe that.
 
C.Longinus, Apparently the writers of the article believe that.

,

Got it… OK. They’ve the freedom to believe whatever they will.

In that case, they’re so wrong…

_
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
C.Longinus, Apparently the writers of the article believe that.

,

Got it… OK. They’ve the freedom to believe whatever they will.

In that case, they’re so wrong…

_
Click to expand...
The writers of the article are not alone in their belief. It is the Eastern tradition that Joseph was a widower who had children from his previous marriage.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Joseph_the_Betrothed

It is certainly not on the level of sacred Tradition, but your attitude is quite dismissive of an ancient tradition within the Church. To reject it just because you’ve never heard it before seems premature.
 
You linked to an article by Cynthia Trainque, a Catholic journalist. She is not a scholar or an authoritative source. James, Jude, Joses and the other “brothers and sisters” mentioned in the NT were probably either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage (“the Epiphanian view”) or nephews and nieces (“the Hieronymite view”). These terms derive from the two rival interpretations that were current among theologians in the 380s, under the pontificate of Damasus.
 
The Greek word adelphos, meaning brother, is used in the Bible. However, adelphos does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a halfbrother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc.
 
babochka said:
40.png
EndTimes:
C.Longinus, Apparently the writers of the article believe that.

,

Got it… OK. They’ve the freedom to believe whatever they will.

In that case, they’re so wrong…

_
Click to expand...
The writers of the article are not alone in their belief. It is the Eastern tradition that Joseph was a widower who had children from his previous marriage.
Joseph the Betrothed - OrthodoxWiki

It is certainly not on the level of sacred Tradition, but your attitude is quite dismissive of an ancient tradition within the Church. To reject it just because you’ve never heard it before seems premature.
Click to expand...
What does this belief have in the light of the presentation ceremony?
 
In the East and perhaps in certain parts of the West till this day, the concept of being a brother (or brotherhood) does not mean they are blood-related. Cousins, i.e. second or third degree relations are also called brothers and sisters.

Because the modern western understanding of first degree related siblings from the same parent is becoming a prevailing view, it clouds the ancient practices of how relations prevalent were understood, which in turn affects interpretation of the text being read.

 
Jerome was an ascetic so his perspective is biased towards his lifestyle.
 
Jesus had to fulfill each and every Old Testament prophecy. Including Zechariah 12:10
Douay-Rheims:
And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.

Knox:
On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through. Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.
Click to expand...
“First born dead, only son” there goes the ‘brothers of Christ’…this, of course, has been twisted, as Saint Peter predicted in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
If our Lord stays his hand, count it part of his mercy. Our beloved brother Paul, with the wisdom God has granted him, has written you a letter, in which, as in all his letters, he talks of this. (Though indeed, there are passages in them difficult to understand, and these, like the rest of scripture, are twisted into a wrong sense by ignorant and restless minds, to their own undoing.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
C.Longinus said:
How would this work with the following information from this link?
Click to expand...
Catholics, Protestants, & Eastern Orthodox would all agree that the Greek word for “brothers” (adelphoi) can have numerous meanings, besides uterine. So, simply utilizing a single meaning from the Greek does not tell us whether Jesus’ “brothers” were blood-related or other (older step-brothers, non-uterine relatives like cousins, spiritual believing “brothers,” etc.)

It is also assumed that the female Greek equivalent for “sisters” (“adelphe”) also has multiple meanings as well. However, when you consult a Greek lexicon or concordance, it only has two meanings: 1) female uterine sibling; 2) female believer (Christian):

“sister” (Greek: adelphe)

In the Septuagint, whenever “sister” is translated from Hebrew to the Greek (“adelphe”), nearly 100% of the time it is translated to mean either a female uterine sibling or a fellow female believer in the God of Israel (such as the “sister” divided kingdoms of Israel & Judah). The only exception is when the Hebrew word for “sister” to refer to a non-uterine female family member (like a female cousin) is translated “adelphe” is because it a direct Hebrew-to-Greek translation. IOW, the translators of the Septuagint would not use the Greek equivalents for relative or cousin, because that would not be a direct word-for-word translation, which would be the translational goal.

We see this in the NT as well. While Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, etc. may disagree as to whether “adelphe” refers to Jesus’ “sisters” being uterine or something else, everywhere else in the NT, “adelphe” consistently means either female uterine sister or female believer in Christ, which would be faithful to the only two Greek meanings.

It is because of these meanings why Protestants & other non-Catholics believe Jesus’ “sisters” were younger half-siblings, and where they are mentioned in the gospels alongside Jesus’ “brothers” that “adelphoi” also means uterine.

[cont.]
 
[cont.]
C.Longinus said:
“This is my first born son, the first born of his mother”.
Click to expand...
The Greek for “firstborn” (“prōtotokos”) can, and often does, simply means “preeminent” (Colossians 1:15,18), as well as simply meaning “firstborn, but not necessarily ‘first among others.’” However, it can, and does, mean “first among others” (Hebrews 11:28). This passage refers back to the OT when all the “firstborn” in Egypt were killed by the “angel of death” if the blood of the doorposts & lintels weren’t smeared with blood. Obviously, not all of these households had only children who perished. At least some of them had other children, and only the “firstborn” perished.

When the NT writers wished to convey someone was an only child, they would use “only begotten” (“monogenēs”), such as Jesus being the “only begotten” (“monogenēs”) Son of God the Father (John 3:16), meaning Jesus did not have other heavenly “God-brothers,” rather than “firstborn” (“prōtotokos”).

“Monogenēs” simply means “single of its kind, only,” while when “prōtotokos” is used it more specifically refers to a child who has other siblings (Hebrews 11:28). This is why Protestants & others believe when Jesus is referred to as Mary’s “firstborn Son” (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7), the NT writers specifically used “prōtotokos,” instead of “monogenēs.” The understanding is if they wished to convey Jesus was an only Child, even after He was born & grew up, they would have utilized “monogenēs,” instead.

At least that is the Protestant argument exegeting from the Greek.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn .
Click to expand...
The context of Zechariah’s passage was that “only son” refers to Jesus being the fulfillment of this prophecy, as the “only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16), but not “necessarily” Jesus being an “only son” of Mary. The context is that “firstborn” here means “preeminence” in terms of His Deity, not His earthly birth order. IOW, even “if” Jesus was the only Child of Mary, Zechariah’s prophecy isn’t a proof-text for it, since it is in reference to Jesus’ relationship to God as the promised Messiah, but not in relationship to His earthly mother’s birth order. See my two previous comments based on the Protestant argument.
 
Last edited:
Whoa right there!!! What is your authority for telling me what anything means, let alone the word of God? I’ll need to see the framed sheepskin.

You have been told what revealed truth is, and it is not the self. It is the Church, just as the bible says, just as our Lord says.

Later. I’m out.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Whoa right there!!! What is your authority for telling me what anything means, let alone the word of God? I’ll need to see the framed sheepskin.

You have been told what revealed truth is, and it is not the self. It is the Church, just as the bible says, just as our Lord says.
Click to expand...
“Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17)

I’m not attempting to “tell” you anything. I am simply responding to the OP, and explaining what the Protestant argument for why they believe Jesus’ brothers and sisters are uterine, based on the “authority” of the “truth” of Scripture we all agree on, based on the meaning of words from the Greek, we also all agree on. So, I’m not attempting to “convince” anyone of anything. Just presenting a particular argument, as well as what the argument is based on. Nothing more.

Would greatly welcome your critique of this argument, based on the source of the argument (which is the Greek meanings, not someone’s alleged proverbial “sheepskin”).
 
Dolphin said:
The Greek word in the Bible referring to Jesus’ brothers translates closer to a close friend who is viewed as basically a brother. Not actual genetic brotherhood but a close bond of that nature
Click to expand...
In Mark 3:31, it states Jesus’ mother & brothers are OUTSIDE. Jesus then contrasts them to His “brothers” who do the will of God, who are INSIDE (v.34), which He refers to as His “brothers & sisters & mother” (v.35). Since Jesus is contrasting the literal (v.31) with the spiritual (v.35), and since His “literal” mother in v.31 is Mary, then who is His “literal” brothers in v.31, if they are not biological like Mary is biological?

Also, see my two-part post in this thread. They are posts 15 & 16 above.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top