Jesus' brethren did not believe?

[twinc]

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.

why so it does not automatically follow - many who pray also go astray.Why He chose John [as the beloved disciple]is stated but not understood.So let us back track and track back and see exactly what is wrong with the many incorrect interpretations - more later - twinc

 

[twinc]

so let us recall what Jesus actually said viz "[my]son behold thy mother and “woman[not mother]behold thy son and mine” - here we have the second Adam and Eve redeeming themselves and us and their son Cain.Lazarus[the beloved disciple]was their dead son[Abel] - this is how I read it so would anyone like to comment - twinc

 

[DaveBj]

You’re very observant. The evidence is not conclusive but still very strong.

Yeah. I don’t state absolutely that Mary and Salome were sisters, but I think the certainty is about 95%.

DaveBj

 

[twinc]

You’re very observant. The evidence is not conclusive but still very strong.

what you did not observe was that only a close relative can claim a dead person for burial and in a family grave - the close relative appears as Joseph of Arimathae when in fact it would have been His brothers and sisters - JA was it seems related and was the later day guardian of the holy family after the early death of Joseph husband of Mary - twinc

 

[Nita]

---

Do you have proof of this? The scripture seems to be very clear

Starting verse: Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Mk 6:2-3 …James and Joses and Judas and Simon…sisters)

Understand the above with the following verses:
John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene
(three Mary’s at the foot of the cross. Also, Cleophas is same person as Alphaeus)

Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.”

Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
(only two apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus.)

Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…”

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and **brother of **James…”

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (also called "Jude” - Lk 6:16), and Simon the Cananaean (also called Simon the Zealot)…"
(Jesus and Mary were Nazareans, but they attended a wedding in Cana – presumably relatives. Perhaps Simon was one of them. )

 

[awatkins69]

---

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” referred 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

This is actually a fairly good point. Doesn’t it seem to not make sense within the context?

All I can say, as the typical Catholic response would go, is that Jesus spoke a language with no separate word for cousin and brother, and they could thus be used interchangeably. That is, the distinction was typically not made.

As for what the Bible says on false gospels, it also says that if we do not listen to the Church we should be treated as the heathen and tax collectors (Matthew 18). It also doesn’t seem to make sense to me that the person who invented sola Scriptura (Luther), and truly believed in it (Calvin as well), could come to the same conclusion as Catholics, but you guys with sola Scriptura come to believe the polar opposite. Shows the reliability of that method for ya’. But that’s a completely different story that we should not delve into in this thread.

 

[twinc]

This is actually a fairly good point. Doesn’t it seem to not make sense within the context?

All I can say, as the typical Catholic response would go, is that Jesus spoke a language with no separate word for cousin and brother, and they could thus be used interchangeably. That is, the distinction was typically not made.

As for what the Bible says on false gospels, it also says that if we do not listen to the Church we should be treated as the heathen and tax collectors (Matthew 18). It also doesn’t seem to make sense to me that the person who invented sola Scriptura (Luther), and truly believed in it (Calvin as well), could come to the same conclusion as Catholics, but you guys with sola Scriptura come to believe the polar opposite. Shows the reliability of that method for ya’. But that’s a completely different story that we should not delve into in this thread.

Did Jesus Christ believe in just sola scripture when He repeated “it is written,it is written,it is written” and “ye do err not knowing the scriptures” - twinc

 

[awatkins69]

Nope. He just quoted the Scriptures for teaching. Catholics quote the Scriptures all the time, and the Church says that study of Scripture is very “profitable for teaching and salvation”. We believe it is the infallible Word of God. How you get from this, to making it the ultimate rule of faith, I haven’t the slightest clue. “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?”, asked St. Phillip to the Ethiopian eunuch, who replied “How can I, unless some man show me?” Interesting that the person showing him was someone “who had been sent”, and not just some individual interpreting things for himself.

But we’re getting way off track. If we’re going to study the idea of sola Scriptura, let’s do that in a separate thread.

 

[twinc]

Nope. He just quoted the Scriptures for teaching. Catholics quote the Scriptures all the time, and the Church says that study of Scripture is very “profitable for teaching and salvation”. We believe it is the infallible Word of God. How you get from this, to making it the ultimate rule of faith, I haven’t the slightest clue. “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?”, asked St. Phillip to the Ethiopian eunuch, who replied “How can I, unless some man show me?” Interesting that the person showing him was someone “who had been sent”, and not just some individual interpreting things for himself.

 

[twinc]

twinc:
“there are many other things that Jesus said and did that are not written here,but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” - so presumably nothing else or extra need be added or taken away - twinc

 

[awatkins69]

Well, the Gospel of St. John was written before the Book of Revelation was, so I guess you’d also have to conclude we don’t need Revelation.

 

[Bengoshi]

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.

Since you are talking of circumstancial evidence and burden of proof, your argument from Tradition will not suffice either. In law, this is considered as hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in any court of law. For evidence to be considered admissible, it must come from a personal knowledge of facts, not just something that was passed on (which is actually what tradition really means).

 

[awatkins69]

We’re getting side-tracked into sola Scriptura,Tradition, and law discussions, and it is partly my fault.

Let’s get back on track.
My first post considered that if Jesus’ brethren did not believe, then maybe that explains His entrusting Mary to Saint John. Some however have pointed out that only 40 days later we see the brethren of the Lord as pious and devout members of the Christian community. This makes it seem unlikely that they did not believe by the time of Our Lord’s crucifixion. But even if they didn’t, we know for certain that they did within 40 days. And since Our Lord is God and would foresee this happening, He would likely have entrusted His mother to His brethren (to do otherwise would be a slap in the face in terms of custom).

An objection was brought up. If Jesus’ brethren are not really His literal brethren, then Matt 12:46-50 doesn’t seem to make much sense. To which I replied that, having only one word for both cousin and brother, they were likely used interchangeably and distinctions were not made. But I’d like to hear more on this, since I’m a mediocre theologian and Biblical historian at best.

 

[steve99]

Starting verse: Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Mk 6:2-3 …James and Joses and Judas and Simon…sisters)

Understand the above with the following verses:
John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene
(three Mary’s at the foot of the cross. Also, Cleophas is same person as Alphaeus)

Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.”

Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
(only two apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus.)

Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…”

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and **brother of **James…”

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (also called "Jude” - Lk 6:16), and Simon the Cananaean (also called Simon the Zealot)…"
(Jesus and Mary were Nazareans, but they attended a wedding in Cana – presumably relatives. Perhaps Simon was one of them. )

The words brother and sister were used quite loosely in those times, indeed as they can be today. If we want to be precise we use terms like half-brother, adoptive-brother. brother-in-law. If two people marry, who already have children, the non biologically related children will often refer to each other as brothers and sisters.

John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene

It is believed (from some sources) that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was an only child and therefore Mary the wife of Clopas was not her blood sister. However she could have been her sister-in-law.

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus.

 

[Nita]

The words brother and sister were used quite loosely in those times, indeed as they can be today. If we want to be precise we use terms like half-brother, adoptive-brother. brother-in-law. If two people marry, who already have children, the non biologically related children will often refer to each other as brothers and sisters.

John 19:25: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene

It is believed (from some sources) that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was an only child and therefore Mary the wife of Clopas was not her blood sister. However she could have been her sister-in-law.

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Thanks for the Eusebius quote.

Altho it’s a little like working a logic problem , with a little mental effort it becomes clear from the Scripture passages alone that James, Joseph/Joses, and Jude for sure were not children of Mary and Joseph. So, really appreciated the Eusebius quote regarding Symeon. Perhaps there’s a Scripture quote somewhere that I’m missing about his parentage.

 

[NHInsider]

Since you are talking of circumstancial evidence and burden of proof, your argument from Tradition will not suffice either. In law, this is considered as hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in any court of law. For evidence to be considered admissible, it must come from a personal knowledge of facts, not just something that was passed on (which is actually what tradition really means).

Of course on that basis, none of us should believe anything about Jesus at all.

Non-sequitor.

 

[Bengoshi]

Of course on that basis, none of us should believe anything about Jesus at all.

Non-sequitor.

Not necessarily because we have written testimonies from those who actually had personal knowledge of what happened, and that’s the Bible.