Jesus and siblings?

[Sirach2]

Just a further note of help regarding the word “brother”.

The Greek uses two words to describe either brother or brethren. One cannot prove, therefore, that the word literally means a virtual son of someone. If you look at the two Greek translations here, and scroll down to the many scriptures where the same Greek word for “brother” means “brethren”, it will be clear that it does not prove Mary had other children.

biblehub.com/greek/adelphoi_80.htm

biblehub.com/greek/adelphos_80.htm

 

[solarguy17]

Just a further note of help regarding the word “brother”.

The Greek uses two words to describe either brother or brethren. One cannot prove, therefore, that the word literally means a virtual son of someone. If you look at the two Greek translations here, and scroll down to the many scriptures where the same Greek word for “brother” means “brethren”, it will be clear that it does not prove Mary had other children.

biblehub.com/greek/adelphoi_80.htm

biblehub.com/greek/adelphos_80.htm

And that’s fine. The crux of my comment is whether not that sentence makes using cousin instead of brother.
But the reality is in my second statement regarding why it shouldn’t matter if Mary had sex with Joseph after having Jesus. She would still be a holy women regardless.

 

[MT1926]

But the reality is in my second statement regarding why it shouldn’t matter if Mary had sex with Joseph after having Jesus. She would still be a holy women regardless.

There are so many Biblical reasons why Mary was a perpetual virgin. I think the real question is… Why should it matter if she was a perpetual virgin? It didn’t seem to bother anyone for the first 1600 years of Christianity.

Give this video a look.

youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8

 

[Sirach2]

.
But the reality is in my second statement regarding why it shouldn’t matter if Mary had sex with Joseph after having Jesus. She would still be a holy women regardless.

It is because of her vow to remain a virgin. This may help.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wesrock]

But the reality is in my second statement regarding why it shouldn’t matter if Mary had sex with Joseph after having Jesus. She would still be a holy women regardless.

I posted some thoughts on this as well in post# 19.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus didn’t come to establish a monarchy.

Jesus came to establish the Church which is the kingdom of God on earth. But there’s more:

Jesus inherited the throne of his father, David. (Luke 1:32)

Jesus named Peter as His Royal Steward. (Is. 20:22, Mt. 16:18-19)

Jesus promised thrones to His Apostles. (Mt. 19:28)

Jesus acknowledged that He is a king to Pilate. (Jn 18:37)

 

[Randy_Carson]

But the reality is in my second statement regarding why it shouldn’t matter if Mary had sex with Joseph after having Jesus. She would still be a holy women regardless.

Why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Important

Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church.

Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2).

In addition, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary preserves the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and hence, indirectly, the Incarnation. If Mary had other children in the usual way, then everyone would know that she had conceived children by natural means, and the potential would exist to deny that Jesus’ birth was supernatural. Her perpetual virginity underscores the extraordinary miracle of Jesus’ conception.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Really? I don’t think there will be several thrones in Heaven.
There is only one King of Kings.

I know what you’re trying to say, but to be technically accurate:

Revelation 4:4
Around the throne are twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones are twenty-four elders, dressed in white robes, with golden crowns on their heads.

So, there are at least 25 thrones in heaven. But I’m guessing that Mary, Queen of Heaven, has one, too. So…

 

[po18guy]

Jesus came to establish the Church which is the kingdom of God on earth. But there’s more:

Jesus inherited the throne of his father, David. (Luke 1:32)

Jesus named Peter as His Royal Steward. (Is. 20:22, Mt. 16:18-19)

Jesus promised thrones to His Apostles. (Mt. 19:28)

Jesus acknowledged that He is a king to Pilate. (Jn 18:37)

Dismas recognized our Lord as a King - but not of a kingdom of this world.

In the big picture, the reformation began an attack, not only on the Sacraments, but also on purity. Luther violated/renounced his vow of celibacy and married a nun who violated/renounced her vow of celibacy. Maybe Freud was right.

 

[Duane1966]

Mark 3:31-35

If you replace all instance of brother and sister with cousin, this passage makes no sense

Then His mother and His cousins arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your cousins are outside looking for You.” Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My cousins?” Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My cousins! For whoever does the will of God, he is My cousins and mother.”

Ask yourself this: What word in Aramaic could Jesus have used to say cousin? I will give you a hint, there is none. And what point is Jesus, in the words of the gospel writer, trying to convey to His followers? That tells you why this specific language is used.

Since we know Jesus used the word brothers, the question becomes, should St. Mark have used the Greek word for cousins in this passage, or stick to a strict translation of Jesus’ words, even if they were actually cousins waiting outside? When you realize the point trying to be conveyed, that if we do God’s will we are Christ’s brothers, then using this strict translation makes perfect sense.

Now is this proof Jesus had full siblings? No. Does it make a decent agreement for siblings, yes.

Nope. Not when you consider that Jesus gives the care of His mother to John, which every Jewish scholar admits would be unheard of in Jewish society at the time of Christ, if He had other siblings.

I personally don’t think it matters if He had siblings becuase I don’t thing Mary having sex with Joseph would have some how hurt her holiness. Sex is a positive thing between a married couple and that joining honors God since God bound the husband and wife in marriage. If God bound them together, how does fulfilling the marriage bed cause her to somehow become less holy?

If she took a perpetual vow of virginity, would breaking that vow cause her to be less holy?

 

[solarguy17]

In addition, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary preserves the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and hence, indirectly, the Incarnation. If Mary had other children in the usual way, then everyone would know that she had conceived children by natural means, and the potential would exist to deny that Jesus’ birth was supernatural. Her perpetual virginity underscores the extraordinary miracle of Jesus’ conception.

This is probably the best arguement for perpetual virginity. Becuase, you are right, if she had other children the assumption would be that she probably has Jesus the normal way also and that would be a problem due to The prophecies concerning Jesus.
That being said, there were undoubtly doubts of her virginity anyway since everyone is relying on her and Joseph’s word.

Now the biggest arguement that it doesn’t matter is that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible anywhere that she remained a virgin after the birth. I have read verses that people use to say she definitely did have children (and this sex) but when I read those I see that as one interpretation that they are using just to avoid having a Catholic like thought.
Like I said, I believe there is slightly more evidence that she had more children then not given some of the references to Jesus’ family, but at the end of the day since the Bible is silent on the matter, it really isn’t that big of a deal.

 

[MT1926]

Now the biggest arguement that it doesn’t matter is that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible anywhere that she remained a virgin after the birth.

Where in the Bible does it say everything must be in the Bible? When you say it doesn’t matter, I am guessing you mean it doesn’t matter to us. However, from reading scripture do you think it matters to God?

I have read verses that people use to say she definitely did have children (and this sex) but when I read those I see that as one interpretation that they are using just to avoid having a Catholic like thought.

You got that one right. It all comes down to interpretation. Now that is the hard part who has the correct interpretation. See that is the beauty of being Catholic. The Church has already done the hard part for us. As you seem to mention here some people take one verse of scripture and give their interpretation. However, the Church takes the whole of scripture (New and Old) before coming up with a dogma. For instance they also take into account
Exodus 19:11 on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai…12 … ‘Take heed that you do not go up into the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; …14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and consecrated the people… 15 And he said to the people, “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.”

The old testament also tells us the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Now these verses on the surface have absolutely nothing to do with Mary. However, there is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy. I am sure we can both agree the Jesus is something very holy and that he was present during Joseph and Mary’s entire marriage.

The Church Fathers also took into account

Ezekiel 44
The Closed Gate
44 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he[a] said to me, “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. 3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

This verse, with many many other verses of scripture, brings us to the conclusion that Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Now we know Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), sure we might not understand this with our 21st century customs, but I’m sure Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?

Speaking of customs the Church also helps us understand the customs of the times, so we don’t make the mistake of reading scripture without knowing the minds of the ones writing. According to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.

Like I said, I believe there is slightly more evidence that she had more children then not given some of the references to Jesus’ family, but at the end of the day since the Bible is silent on the matter, it really isn’t that big of a deal.

If all you are looking for are direct quotes, then yes that is exactly what you are going to find. But I ask, is the Bible a self help book? Is it just a list of instructions? or Is it a collection of books, that need to be read as a whole in order to determine God’s plan for salvation?

The perpetual virginity of Mary isn’t a one liner, it is a well thought out Biblical based Dogma. I recommend doing a little more research on this topic. When you do say a pray that the Holy Spirit will keep you open to seeing the beauty of Bible as a whole and not as one verse, passage, or book of scripture.

The Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.

In the end we need to pray and ask God to open our eyes to what he wants and if it matters to Him. His will be done, not ours.

God Bless

Here’s some info to get you started:
youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-we-know-mary-was-a-perpetual-virgin-0
catholic.com/perpetual-virginity-of-mary

 

[James248]

Well it is important if all of a sudden you dismiss traditions in the Bible. Remember the Gospel of Mark where it says, "His relatives came to restrain Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind” and that passage in John 7 where His brothers try to get Him to go to Jerusalem? Jesus’ culture was a culture of filial piety and respect for elders. So the brothers of Jesus would have been disrespectful if they were going to restrain their brother or advise him since they were younger.

 

[Duane1966]

Well it is important if all of a sudden you dismiss traditions in the Bible. Remember the Gospel of Mark where it says, "His relatives came to restrain Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind” and that passage in John 7 where His brothers try to get Him to go to Jerusalem? Jesus’ culture was a culture of filial piety and respect for elders. So the brothers of Jesus would have been disrespectful if they were going to restrain their brother or advise him since they were younger.

Yes. Jewish scholars have said that if these were younger blood brothers of Christ, it would have been absolutely taboo for them to speak to Jesus this way.

 

[solarguy17]

Yes. Jewish scholars have said that if these were younger blood brothers of Christ, it would have been absolutely taboo for them to speak to Jesus this way.

Maybe it would have been taboo, but if they literally thought that Jesus was “crazy” or “out of his mind” then trying to correct him might not have been wrong. Not to mention, there is a verse in Matthew (I think) that refers to his brother not believing him. I’ll have to find the verse but the way it is read makes it sound like at first Jesus’ brothers (or cousins) disagreed with His teachings. And it wasn’t until later they converted.
Or not all of His brother believed him. The Bible never mentions number of siblings, other then a plurality of brothers and a plurality of sisters. Indicating that he had at least 2 of each. Maybe more. Of course that doesn’t mean they were all blood relatives.

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t want to get slammed for this, so I will try to say it as politely as possible. In reality, what difference does it make if Jesus had siblings or not?

A big moral difference. Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. You’re kindly invited to see my blog.

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/12/the-power-of-the-most-high-shall-overshadow-thee/

:heaven:

 

[abucs]

A good perspective on this is to read the Book of Tobit. In it, we see that a man married his “sister” - although she was only a distant relative from the same tribe of the twelve tribes.

Thank you. I didn’t know this.

Catholic Answers Thread.