Jesus' brethren did not believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

awatkins69

Guest
When you use the proof of Jesus’ telling Mary to live with Saint John rather than His “brethren”, the Protestant will say that He did this because His brethren did not believe in Him and were unfaithful (John 7:5). The only rebuttal I’ve seen to this is Acts 1:14. However, I don’t see how this works, because Acts 1:14 only describes what happened after the Resurrection. Maybe the brethren came along after the Resurrection, but not before the Crucifixion? Thanks.

PS. I’m not sure if this is a re-post, since I couldn’t find it with a search. If there are other discussions of this, please let me know.
 
Don’t fall into the trap of “proof-texting” - that’s allowing your loyal opposition to set the rules. Catholics do not believe that “everything you need to know” is recorded in Scripture. We do believe that the Lord Jesus promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would reveal to them “everything you need to know.”

Jesus’ giving St. John responsibility for looking after His Mother is not “proof,” it is one piece of “circumstantial” evidence - one of many.

The burden of “proof” should be upon those who are contradicting 2000 years of tradition. They can begin by explaining why adelphos MUST mean “brothers of the same mother” when it patently does not mean that in most of the other occurences.
 
NHInsider said:
Don’t fall into the trap of “proof-texting” - that’s allowing your loyal opposition to set the rules. Catholics do not believe that “everything you need to know” is recorded in Scripture. We do believe that the Lord Jesus promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would reveal to them “everything you need to know.”

Jesus’ giving St. John responsibility for looking after His Mother is not “proof,” it is one piece of “circumstantial” evidence - one of many.

The burden of “proof” should be upon those who are contradicting 2000 years of tradition. They can begin by explaining why adelphos MUST mean “brothers of the same mother” when it patently does not mean that in most of the other occurences.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But this is beside the point. The fact is that Jesus’ brethren possibly did not believe in Him when Jesus gave His mother to Saint John, thus giving an at least logically-acceptable answer. It’s quite likely that they didn’t, as is shown from John 7:5. There’s nothing saying that they did, at least to my knowledge. Only afterwards did they believe, as in Acts 1:14. So this piece of evidence just doesn’t work? And quite frankly, in most occurrences, to be fair, adelphos does mean blood brother. That’s the normal meaning of it. Of course there are many exceptions, but most?
 
Keep in mind that the there was no word in Aharmaic for cousin, so the word brother was used. The confusion comes in when you take into account the Gospels are written in Greek, which has a word for cousin. However you must keep in mind that Jesus Himself still spoke in Aharmaic, and so did His Apostles.

Also, Jesus not entrusting His mother to His family, whether they were faithful or not, would be a huge insult to them. By law and moral responsibility they were supposed to and maybe even would have wanted to take Mary in. Thus if there were any siblings Jesus would have insulted them before His death.

Also keep in mind that the split between Christians and Jews today was not as striking as it was back then, so that being the case the issue of Mary being a believer wouldn’t have made much of a difference to any siblings Jesus would have had. Often times we think of people back then having the same problems we had today. :rolleyes:
 
here we have it seems confusion upon confusion and error upon error so let me as it were answer most posts at one go - the[so called]brothers and sisters of Jesus it seems not only did not believe but actually thought he was mad and tried to restrain him[see Mk.3:21]- furthermore His[so called]brothers and sisters were not his closest next of kin and John did not take Mary to his own home,which would have been a scandal but to his own group[of secret believers who were in fear of the Jews etc- Joseph of Arimathae and Nicodemus were in their number] - more later - twinc
 
I have also heard this expressed, that Jesus left the care of His mother to John because His brothers did not believe. Maybe they did not because we know that earlier in Jesus’ ministry they did not believe. However, this ignores the fact that the man hanging on the cross was the second person of the Trinity. Jesus knew all things including the fact that only 40 days later His brothers would be assembled in prayer with His mother and the apostles. So even if they did not believe at the time of the crucifixion, He knew they would shortly become believers and that argument won’t work.
 
Zenas said:
I have also heard this expressed, that Jesus left the care of His mother to John because His brothers did not believe. Maybe they did not because we know that earlier in Jesus’ ministry they did not believe. However, this ignores the fact that the man hanging on the cross was the second person of the Trinity. Jesus knew all things including the fact that only 40 days later His brothers would be assembled in prayer with His mother and the apostles. So even if they did not believe at the time of the crucifixion, He knew they would shortly become believers and that argument won’t work.
Click to expand...
exactly what argument are you talking about th\at wont hold - twinc
 
Zenas said:
I have also heard this expressed, that Jesus left the care of His mother to John because His brothers did not believe. Maybe they did not because we know that earlier in Jesus’ ministry they did not believe. However, this ignores the fact that the man hanging on the cross was the second person of the Trinity. Jesus knew all things including the fact that only 40 days later His brothers would be assembled in prayer with His mother and the apostles. So even if they did not believe at the time of the crucifixion, He knew they would shortly become believers and that argument won’t work.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point.
 
awatkins69 said:
That’s a good point.
Click to expand...
how is it a good point when his so called brothers and sisters did not even claim his body for burial.His body would have been tipped into a pit of burning fire to be burnt. To die on a cross was seen as a sign of ignominy not to be identified with - furthermore then as now a dead body cannot just be claimed by just anybody and buried in their family grave - btw James who is constantly referred to as the brother of the Lord only minutes before his death accepted and proclaimed Hi as the way or doorway - more later - twinc
 
If we can call god our father through our baptism , then we can call Jesus our brother and Mary our mother through the same baptism. So every believer would have been Jesus brother. Also if Jesus had other blood brothers would not they be members of the holy family without having to say yes to God. Mary had to say yes to God through angel before she could be the mother of God. likewise Joseph had to yes to God through an angel to become Jesus step father. Further more the failure to understand of a spiritual fatherhood role of a priest.
 
twinc said:
how is it a good point when his so called brothers and sisters did not even claim his body for burial.His body would have been tipped into a pit of burning fire to be burnt. To die on a cross was seen as a sign of ignominy not to be identified with - furthermore then as now a dead body cannot just be claimed by just anybody and buried in their family grave - btw James who is constantly referred to as the brother of the Lord only minutes before his death accepted and proclaimed Hi as the way or doorway - more later - twinc
Click to expand...
You’re misunderstanding. He was saying that Jesus could foresee the future, and if within 40 days His brethren would have accepted Him (as is shown in Act 1:14) then He would have likely still given them responsibility for His mother. And it is likely that it didn’t take 40 days to accept Him but they had already done so, or else they wouldn’t have been so devout as to be up in the room with all the other apostles. But either way it works.
 
I go with Jesus overlooking his “brothers” as care-givers for His mother because the “brothers” were not her children; they were either older children of Joseph by a previous marriage or cousins.

Also, I see good evidence that John’s mother Salome was Mary’s sister, which would have made John a 1st cousin to Jesus, and perhaps closer to Mary that older children of Joseph would have been.

DaveBj
 
Jesus cousin is John the baptist not John the evangelist. two different people.
 
boeck249 said:
Jesus cousin is John the baptist not John the evangelist. two different people.
Click to expand...
two different Johns, both related to the Lord.

John the beloved much more closely related to Jesus than John the Baptizer.
 
awatkins69 said:
And quite frankly, in most occurrences, to be fair, adelphos does mean blood brother. That’s the normal meaning of it. Of course there are many exceptions, but most?
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I don’t have time to sit and count at the moment, but I think there are many more occurrences of adelphos/oi in contexts where it clearly means “spiritual brethren” than where it might mean “child of my mother and father.”
 
I go with Jesus overlooking his “brothers” as care-givers for His mother because the “brothers” were not her children; they were either older children of Joseph by a previous marriage or cousins.
Click to expand...
Do you have proof of this? The scripture seems to be very clear

Matt 12 (Douay-Rheims Bible )

46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his **brethren **stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy **brethren **stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

The verse doesn’t make sense to say cousin. My cousin my sister and mother? Obviously the “he” refered to a male.

Yes, Jesus had brothers and sisters. We need to be careful, the Bible warns against receiving another gospel.
2 Corinthians 11:4
 
twinc said:
exactly what argument are you talking about th\at wont hold - twinc
Click to expand...
The argument: Jesus chose John over His own brothers because John was a believer and His brothers were not. This argument just assumes that Jesus had brothers and offers an explanation as to why he took the unorthodox path of turning his mother over to John rather than to them.

My rebuttal: Jesus is the son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. He knew that seven weeks hence these men—James, Joses, Simon and Jude—would be assembled with Mary and the disciples in prayer. So any explanation that He chose John over His brothers because of their unbelief must fail.
 
DaveBj said:
I go with Jesus overlooking his “brothers” as care-givers for His mother because the “brothers” were not her children; they were either older children of Joseph by a previous marriage or cousins.

Also, I see good evidence that John’s mother Salome was Mary’s sister, which would have made John a 1st cousin to Jesus, and perhaps closer to Mary that older children of Joseph would have been.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
You’re very observant. The evidence is not conclusive but still very strong.
 
awatkins69 said:
You’re misunderstanding. He was saying that Jesus could foresee the future, and if within 40 days His brethren would have accepted Him (as is shown in Act 1:14) then He would have likely still given them responsibility for His mother. And it is likely that it didn’t take 40 days to accept Him but they had already done so, or else they wouldn’t have been so devout as to be up in the room with all the other apostles. But either way it works.
Click to expand...
how and why does it work - some believe and some do not even if baptised and confirmed together - twinc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top