Jesus and his actual brothers? And Mary not being a perpetual virgin. How to refute this Protestant attack?

[chero23]

page 3

*Luke 2:41-51 when Mary and Joseph are looking for Jesus, if he Mary did have more children, is for those brothers and sisters of Jesus helped their parents find their brother.
•John 19:25-27 when Jesus was on the cross, he leaves his mother, the Blessed virgin Mary with the disciple John, If Jesus had more brothers it would have been wise for him to leave his Mother, with his brothers not a best friend. Imagine if you have a brother and he’s about to die, his best friend is there and he tells him if front of you, take care of my mom, but doesn’t tell you anything. How would that make you feel?
•1 Timothy 5:3-5 Honor widows who are real widows. If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; (If we see even Scripture says that, the widows Children must be the first to take care of her, not a best friend. So if Jesus had brothers they shouldn’t of been in charge not John, John 19:25-27, remember it was Hebrew custom and even today, that the brothers would take care of the parents and Jesus knew this. Since he left John in charge, means that he didn’t have any brothers or sisters, to leave his mother with)

A Catholic Response that they won’t be able to counter. The following verses involve an angel, who tells four different people that either them, or their wife is going to have a child. Also, in each, they only have 1 child.
•Genesis 18:10 the angel tells Abraham that his wife is going to have a child. They only had 1 son, his name, Isaac.
•Judges 13:3 an angel appears to Zora, and tells her that she will have a son. She only has 1 son, which is Samson.
•Luke 1:13 the archangel Gabriel tells Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth will have a son. They only had 1 son, John the Baptist.
•Luke 1:30-31 the archangel Gabriel, tells Mary that she will have a son, Jesus. If we look at the first 3 schemes, we can see that the same format will continue, of only 1 child.

A Second Catholic Response that they won’t be able to counter.
•Leviticus 16:2-34 only the High priest was allowed to enter the Holy Tent and offer a sacrifice. Remember that Jesus is the High Priest, Hebrews 3:1: Remember that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and Jesus being the Eternal High Priest, nobody else could be in the same place as him.
•Ezekiel 44:2 "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut

 

[chero23]

What about Luke 14:12 ("And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment.” NASB). Note that Jesus Himself used “brothers” (ἀδελφούς) and “relatives” (συγγενεῖς) in the same sentence. Paul tells us that all Scripture is “God-breathed”, so I see no reason to doubt what the Scriptures say. In regard to Abraham and Lot (an argument I’ve heard many times), we know the exact relationship between them because God took the time to explain it to us in His word. Either God did the same thing when He described the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, or He didn’t. Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott, in his book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (available in the CA bookstore), points out that there is NO Scriptural support for this dogma. It first appears in writings in the 3rd or 4th century in works condemned by Pope Gelasius as heretical (odd that an “Apostolic Tradition” first be found in a heretical writing centuries after the Apostles were gone). Any Scripture offered in defense of this dogma is an “indication”, not a “proof”.

Personally, I don’t believe she was a perpetual virgin (for many reasons). However, if it is ever proven to be the case, my faith in God and His Scriptures will remain strong. What if someone finds proof that Mary and Joseph had other children?

Just something else to think about!

I think you see Mary as a regular woman when in actuality no woman will be able to measure to her greatness. This is the Mother of Jesus who is God. God made his mother to his own image with more love than he created us, because guess what, that was going to be his mother. If you believe that she did have more kids, then your doubting God,

 

[Cachonga]

chero23:

I think you see Mary as a regular woman when in actuality no woman will be able to measure to her greatness. This is the Mother of Jesus who is God. God made his mother to his own image with more love than he created us, because guess what, that was going to be his mother. If you believe that she did have more kids, then your doubting God,

I disagree with your statement of faith! To be sure, she was the most blessed of women, but Scripture doesn’t tell us much more about her. To assert that she was a perpetual virgin, immaculately concieved or bodily assumed doesn’t come from the Scriptures.

Funny that you say, “*The following verses will prove that Mary did not have any more children.”, yet the “infallible” church doesn’t use any Scripture as “proof” for the dogma (as admitted by the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, as previously stated). What are your qualifications to make such a statement? What do you know that Ludwig Ott and your own church leaders don’t? I will admit that I could be wrong. If I am, please document when and where the church “infallibly” declared these (or any) Scriptures as proof for the dogma.

 

[estesbob]

In Mark and Matthew the Jews declare in wonder “isn’t this the son of Mary”?If he had brothers wouldn’t they have said"isn’t this A Son of Mary"?

 

[estesbob]

I disagree with your statement of faith! To be sure, she was the most blessed of women, but Scripture doesn’t tell us much more about her. To assert that she was a perpetual virgin, immaculately concieved or bodily assumed doesn’t come from the Scriptures.

Funny that you say, “*The following verses will prove that Mary did not have any more children.”, yet the “infallible” church doesn’t use any Scripture as “proof” for the dogma (as admitted by the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, as previously stated). What are your qualifications to make such a statement? What do you know that Ludwig Ott and your own church leaders don’t? I will admit that I could be wrong. If I am, please document when and where the church “infallibly” declared these (or any) Scriptures as proof for the dogma.

You are making the common Protestant mistake of demanding proof based on Sola Scriptura-a doctrine the Church has never held.Like Sola Scriptura the idea that Mary had other children can not be found for the first 1,500 years after Jesus founded his Church.

 

[Cachonga]

estesbob:

You are making the common Protestant mistake of demanding proof based on Sola Scriptura-a doctrine the Church has never held.Like Sola Scriptura the idea that Mary had other children can not be found for the first 1,500 years after Jesus founded his Church.

You are making the mistake of putting church teaching above the Scriptures (you will, undoubtedly deny this, but functionally, it’s true). Sola Scriptura is not the topic, and I think it’s understood that I believe it and you don’t, so let’s move on from there.

If he had brothers wouldn’t they have said"isn’t this A Son of Mary"?

If Mary was a perpetual virgin, wouldn’t the Scriptures tell us that Joseph “kept her a virgin until the day of his death” (or her death, or her assumption, whichever came first)? What’s important is that Jesus was born of a virgin!

 

[snowflake12345]

Is there anyone, anyone at all who can speak to the fact that Paul used cousin AND brother?

Paul KNEW our James personally! I hear that James was Jesus’ cousin from St. Jerome, but why would Paul use the word “brother” when he had “cousin” in his vocabulary? I don’t get it.

I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, I really do, but I’m so confused as to this whole cousin vs. brother thing with reference to PAUL? Can anyone clarify? Protestants need not reply.

 

[snowflake12345]

You are making the mistake of putting church teaching above the Scriptures (you will, undoubtedly deny this, but functionally, it’s true). Sola Scriptura is not the topic, and I think it’s understood that I believe it and you don’t, so let’s move on from there.

If Mary was a perpetual virgin, wouldn’t the Scriptures tell us that Joseph “kept her a virgin until the day of his death” (or her death, or her assumption, whichever came first)? What’s important is that Jesus was born of a virgin!

thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I’m looking for Catholic replies, if I wanted a non Catholic reply I would have posted my question in the “other religions” forum. Or a Protestant message board.

 

[snowflake12345]

page 3

*Luke 2:41-51 when Mary and Joseph are looking for Jesus, if he Mary did have more children, is for those brothers and sisters of Jesus helped their parents find their brother.
•John 19:25-27 when Jesus was on the cross, he leaves his mother, the Blessed virgin Mary with the disciple John, If Jesus had more brothers it would have been wise for him to leave his Mother, with his brothers not a best friend. Imagine if you have a brother and he’s about to die, his best friend is there and he tells him if front of you, take care of my mom, but doesn’t tell you anything. How would that make you feel?
•1 Timothy 5:3-5 Honor widows who are real widows. If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; (If we see even Scripture says that, the widows Children must be the first to take care of her, not a best friend. So if Jesus had brothers they shouldn’t of been in charge not John, John 19:25-27, remember it was Hebrew custom and even today, that the brothers would take care of the parents and Jesus knew this. Since he left John in charge, means that he didn’t have any brothers or sisters, to leave his mother with)

A Catholic Response that they won’t be able to counter. The following verses involve an angel, who tells four different people that either them, or their wife is going to have a child. Also, in each, they only have 1 child.
•Genesis 18:10 the angel tells Abraham that his wife is going to have a child. They only had 1 son, his name, Isaac.
•Judges 13:3 an angel appears to Zora, and tells her that she will have a son. She only has 1 son, which is Samson.
•Luke 1:13 the archangel Gabriel tells Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth will have a son. They only had 1 son, John the Baptist.
•Luke 1:30-31 the archangel Gabriel, tells Mary that she will have a son, Jesus. If we look at the first 3 schemes, we can see that the same format will continue, of only 1 child.

A Second Catholic Response that they won’t be able to counter.
•Leviticus 16:2-34 only the High priest was allowed to enter the Holy Tent and offer a sacrifice. Remember that Jesus is the High Priest, Hebrews 3:1: Remember that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and Jesus being the Eternal High Priest, nobody else could be in the same place as him.
•Ezekiel 44:2 "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut

Thanks, and it believe every word you have posted, but what about Paul? Why did he use “cousin” AND “brother” especially because he knew James? Was it perhaps Jesus was not a first cousin of James? Is this possible? If they were first cousins Paul would have used the term “cousin”, no? Since he had it in his vocabulary? What am I missing here on this?

 

[ericc]

Help me out on this please. I’m losing sleep over this one.

I know all about the cousin argument, and the half brother argument (not by blood - Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage, and how there is no word for cousin in the language the NT writers spoke, and when it was translated “relative” was simply translated as brother.

But how do I reconcile Paul using the word cousin for Barnabas AND brother with reference to James the brother of Jesus? How do I reconcile this?

See the non-Catholic argument here:

Problem with the Aramaic/Hebrew/cousins argument is that the NT books were written in Greek; and there is a specific word for “cousin” in Greek, used in Colossians 4:10

Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ

Mark the cousin of Barnabas

cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)

If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used them.

Also, there are other words for close relative, cousin, as in Luke 1:36 “your relative Elizabeth”

Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς

How do we understand Paul specifically using both “cousin” AND “brother”?

Why wouldn’t St. Paul, a native Greek speaker use the term “James, the Cousin of our Lord”? He had the word for cousin on his tongue right?

Please help! I’m confused…

Because James , the brother of the Lord, aka James the Just, is the half-brother of Jesus.

Eusebius Book II, Chapter 1 states:

1. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” Ma tthe w 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

The language seems to point to more than 1 children of Joseph before Mary was betrothed to him. So James is Jesus half-brother.

 

[JohnR77]

What I mean is could the two James we read about be considered 2nd or third cousins to Jesus, or other such kin then by the way we read about their fathers? Therefore enabling St. Paul to use the term brother instead of cousin?

YES. You are exactly right. And this pattern of using the Greek word for brothers, “adelphos” to include any close family relationship, for example including nephews, uncles, first cousins, second cousins, once or twice removed, etc, was a pattern already established a hundred or so years before Jesus’ birth when the Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into the Greek into what we call the Septuagint, as Randy C. points out.

Randy, you are a great scholar. And if at my death Jesus were to say that I knew half as much as you, I would take that as a great compliment.

On one point though, you could make an even stronger argument for the Catholic position in my opinion.

You point out that the Greek word for brother, Adelphos, means brother or half brother. It is even more helpful to be more specific and to point out that “adelphos” is a compound word.
A = “same” and
delph = “womb.”

However, even within the New Testament we can prove that this literal meaning is not always the case.

We know that King Herod (Antipas the Tetrarch) and Philip are called brothers (Greek: adelphos) in Mark 6.17. Yet, we know that they are not from the same womb [as the derivation of that word might suggest.] Their father King Herod the Great had many wives and these brothers “adelphos” were born of different mothers.

And I argue there is another example in

**John 19:25
“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
RSV **

I realize some try to make an argument that “**his mother’s sister” **modifies "**Mary" and since it seems unlikely that there would be two Marys in the same household, therefore “******sister” ** **has a larger meaning that includes all close family relations, that is, it includes first cousins, second cousins, once removed, etc.

However, I see two weaknesses in this approach.

First, in Herod the great’s family many, if not all, the sons wanted to have “Herod” in their name, hence Philip is also called “Herod Philip.” So, even if unlikely that there would be two Mary’s in the same household, it is not impossible. It is not a proof.

Secondly, and more important, looking at the larger context of the other Gospel accounts of the crucifixion the reference to “**his mother’s sister” **more likely is a reference to Salome. Arguing that the Gospel accounts are consistent on who was at Calvary, I would argue that it was Salome being referred to as Mary’s sister.

Now this is where the Catholic case for the Greek word for brother, “adelphos,” that it includes more than just immediate siblings, more than just “from the same womb,” is proven correct. The genealogies for Herod and Philip, as well as for Mary and Salome show that they were not from the same womb.

See below for more details :

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/brothers.html
.
Therefore, instead of defining adelphos to mean “brothers or half-brothers” let us be more specific and point out its derivation of “from the same womb.” This we can prove does not apply by the time the New Testament was written. If you stick with the definition of “brothers or half-brother” the proof about Herod’s family tree doesn’t work.
.

 

[johnmann]

I never liked the cousin argument. It was advanced by St. Jerome, translator of the Bible, so I give it the consideration it deserves but I find the step-brother argument fits much better.

As has been mentioned, there is a Greek word for cousin used in the NT so why it wasn’t used in the case of Jesus’ brothers has to be explained.

An earlier post identified James, son of Alphaeus/Cleopas, as the brother of Jesus but that’s a novel modern theory that flies in the face of Church tradition which identifies them as different persons and different saints. The same NT writers use different names so it’s highly unlikely that they’re the same person. Besides, that would still make them cousins so it doesn’t solve the problem why he’s referred to as a brother. The fact that they weren’t blood related would actually argue against calling them brothers.

A twist on the above is the theory that Joseph’s brother died so Joseph cared for his brother’s children as his own. So they were Jesus’ cousins and adopted brothers. Possible but this theory requires a lot of pure speculation.

If we are to accept the Protoevangelium of James as containing some truth, the sons of Joseph from his prior marriage may have already have been adults so that would explain why they aren’t mentioned in the early life of Jesus. By the way, the lack of mention of the brothers in Jesus’ youth also works in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Jesus was 12 when found in the temple yet no siblings are mentioned. Working against this theory is the fact that James would have had to have lived into at least his late 70’s for the timeline to make sense.

 

[chero23]

I disagree with your statement of faith! To be sure, she was the most blessed of women, but Scripture doesn’t tell us much more about her. To assert that she was a perpetual virgin, immaculately concieved or bodily assumed doesn’t come from the Scriptures.

Funny that you say, “*The following verses will prove that Mary did not have any more children.”, yet the “infallible” church doesn’t use any Scripture as “proof” for the dogma (as admitted by the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, as previously stated). What are your qualifications to make such a statement? What do you know that Ludwig Ott and your own church leaders don’t? I will admit that I could be wrong. If I am, please document when and where the church “infallibly” declared these (or any) Scriptures as proof for the dogma.

So im giving you Bible verses, more than 1 and you still think im not being credible. Read the Catechism of the CC, read the early Church Fathers, read the writings of catholic scholars and theologians who have used Bible verses and tradition to back up the doctrine that Mary was a virgin all her life.

I guess Sola Scriptura goes out the window here when I have given you bible verses which demonstrate the contrary about Mary’s virginity.

 

[chero23]

I disagree with your statement of faith! To be sure, she was the most blessed of women, but Scripture doesn’t tell us much more about her. To assert that she was a perpetual virgin, immaculately concieved or bodily assumed doesn’t come from the Scriptures.

Funny that you say, “*The following verses will prove that Mary did not have any more children.”, yet the “infallible” church doesn’t use any Scripture as “proof” for the dogma (as admitted by the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, as previously stated). What are your qualifications to make such a statement? What do you know that Ludwig Ott and your own church leaders don’t? I will admit that I could be wrong. If I am, please document when and where the church “infallibly” declared these (or any) Scriptures as proof for the dogma.

That Scripture doesn’t tell you much? Luke connects 2 Samuel 6 to Luke 1:39-55 making Mary the New Ark, that was the most important thing of the OT aside from God. John starts out his Gospel just like Genesis, and in the 7th day at the wedding of Cana, Jesus and Mary are the only 2 mentioned, look at Genesis with Adam and Eve. Matthew demonstrates as well as Luke, talk about Mary’s queen ship which is alluded to by John in Revelation 11:19-12:1;
Trust me she was the most important person in History outside of God, I would even put her ahead of Abraham.

 

[snowflake12345]

Can anyone give me some insight on why Paul uses the word cousin in Colossians 4? In his greeting at the end? Was it because Barnabas and Mark were first blood cousins? And James was only a relative by marriage that he called him brother of the Lord?

Oh and thanks JohnR7. …

 

[johnmann]

Can anyone give me some insight on why Paul uses the word cousin in Colossians 4? In his greeting at the end? Was it because Barnabas and Mark were first blood cousins? And James was only a relative by marriage that he called him brother of the Lord?

We can only guess but the idea that James was called brother instead of cousin or relative because he was less related to Jesus is highly highly unlikely IMO. My favored theory is that James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. Another theory, though more speculative, that fits is that James was a cousin whom Joseph adopted as a son after his father died.

 

[snowflake12345]

Any other thoughts? The term cousin that Paul uses is in Colossians, and there has been debate whether it’s closing or the letter itself was directly from Paul.

But in any event I’m thinking he used cousin for mark and barnabas, because they were blood cousins who probably didn’t live near each other. Jesus and James were non blood cousins or relatives who probably lived in the same house or next door to eachother growing up, hence the term brother, does this make sense?

 

[snowflake12345]

Are there no apologists here that can speak to my question of Paul using cousin and brother? perhaps some experts in the Greek language?

Help a fellow Catholic out please!

 

[ericc]

Are there no apologists here that can speak to my question of Paul using cousin and brother? perhaps some experts in the Greek language?

Help a fellow Catholic out please!

Why are you so sure James is the cousin of Jesus? If James is the step/half brother of Jesus, then Paul have used the correct term to describe James. In my previous post, I presented that option with supporting ancient documents.

Anyway, you shouldn’t have the Protestants who asked you of this get you all too excited about this because ALL the Reformer Fathers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Asked those Protestants why the change in belief? Asked them who changed that belief, when did they changed it , why did they changed it and who actually changed that belief. I have never gotten an answer on this. If any Protestants were to say that the Reformer Fathers got it wrong, then it just prove that any one of the Protestants could get it wrong too. But all the Reformer Fathers got it wrong???

 

[thistle]

Help me out on this please. I’m losing sleep over this one.

I know all about the cousin argument, and the half brother argument (not by blood - Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage, and how there is no word for cousin in the language the NT writers spoke, and when it was translated “relative” was simply translated as brother.

But how do I reconcile Paul using the word cousin for Barnabas AND brother with reference to James the brother of Jesus? How do I reconcile this?

See the non-Catholic argument here:

Problem with the Aramaic/Hebrew/cousins argument is that the NT books were written in Greek; and there is a specific word for “cousin” in Greek, used in Colossians 4:10

Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ

Mark the cousin of Barnabas

cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)

If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used them.

Also, there are other words for close relative, cousin, as in Luke 1:36 “your relative Elizabeth”

Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς

How do we understand Paul specifically using both “cousin” AND “brother”?

Why wouldn’t St. Paul, a native Greek speaker use the term “James, the Cousin of our Lord”? He had the word for cousin on his tongue right?

Please help! I’m confused…

I always smile at this so-called Protestant claim about Mary not being a perpetual virgin because Luther and the other founders of Protestantism ALL declared in writing that Mary was a perpetual virgin! It seems Protestants cannot make up their minds about their own teachings.