Jesus had siblings?

[twb1621]

1. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and , who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and , were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different , are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
2. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same , begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a , whether such by or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
3. By Estha then (for this was the name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another , married her as before said, and begat a son .
4. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and , although belonging to different , yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ Matthew 1:6 But according to law he was the son of , for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
5. Hence the traced through him will not be rendered void, which the Matthew in his gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of , the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his table up to the end, tracing the back to Adam the . This interpretation is neither incapable of nor is it an idle conjecture.

 

[twb1621]

1. For the relatives of according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case , have handed down the following account: Some robbers, having attacked , a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named . And since the was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the , and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the of the .
2. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son , who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the under Antony and . His sons were and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks….”

final

 

[twb1621]

Well, I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary so I’ll stand by my claim. What dictionary are you referring to? “Continent” can mean not engaging in sexual activity. Celibacy means unmarried.
Cheers

---

You take the time to look up the word in the dictionary but have you studied your faith as you should have to know why and how to defend it?
Do you question the doctrine of your own Faith?

 

[diggerdomer]

---

You take the time to look up the word in the dictionary but have you studied your faith as you should have to know why and how to defend it?
Do you question the doctrine of your own Faith?

Yes to the first.

No to the second (if that’s the same as saying I believe in the Catholic faith).

I’m not sure how this contributes to the topic at hand, but thanks for asking.

Cheers.

 

[twb1621]

Yes to the first.

No to the second (if that’s the same as saying I believe in the Catholic faith).

I’m not sure how this contributes to the topic at hand, but thanks for asking.

Cheers.

I asked because you seem to question the perpetual virginity of Mary as a Protestant would so you are a bit confusing.

 

[FCEGM]

Then you are thinking heretically.

Yup; and those who deny this teaching of the Church really exhibit a lack of understanding of just Who Mary’s Son IS. :banghead:

 

[diggerdomer]

I asked because you seem to question the perpetual virginity of Mary as a Protestant would so you are a bit confusing.

I believe in what the Church teaches including the perpetual virginity of Mary. I don’t think I ever wrote anything that questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, sorry if you got that impression. Thanks again for asking.

Cheers

 

[hopefull]

cel·i·ba·cy (sl-b-s)
n.

1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2. The condition of being unmarried.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Note that the #1 definition is abstinence from sexual intercourse. #2 is being unmarried.

 

[diggerdomer]

cel·i·ba·cy (sl-b-s)
n.

1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2. The condition of being unmarried.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Note that the #1 definition is abstinence from sexual intercourse. #2 is being unmarried.

Thanks. Obviously different dictionaries have different meanings. By the way, the order is not necessarily indicative of priority.

Regardless, I think this means we can agree to be more careful about language? How about if we’re talking about virginity, we use that word, and if we’re talking about marriage, we use that word. That way we won’t confuse ourselves on what each of us might mean by “celibacy.”

Good to clarify terms. Thanks, again.

Now…anything else more closely related to the topic?

Cheers

 

[jean8]

**

It’s hard to believe that even Catholics can not see, which extraordinary experiences Mary relived as we are told in Luke 1,24-54, and that therefore Holy Mary of course couldn’t even think of having other children.
Adding all other experiences – remember the 12year old Jesus teaching the wise etc. and Millions od other happenings about Jesus.

The question about brothers of Jesus, is clear highest blasphemy anyway. How could anybody think, that Mrs. Brown of next door, would be bodily related to God?! (for she is descendant of other Children of Holy Mary) :-(((

How could anybody get the idea, that Holy Mary after the experiment she had - giving birth to God, even think of other - normal human Children.

The everlasting virginity of the holiest of all Holies – Holy Mary – is not only teaching of the Church, is also written into the heart of everyone who really lives his faith as Christian.**

Isn’t it clear, that Gods plan for Holy Mary was a very different one than Gods plans for all other women?!

bruno,
blasphemy? Don’t be absurd. She and Joseph were married.
The Bible also reads in Mk.6:3 “Isn’t this the capenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
Aren’t his sisters here with us?”

On the other hand… None of these siblings were at the crucifixion? From the cross Jesus gave the care of His Mother to John? And these siblings didn’t think Jesus was divine?
So we have a lot of mysteries to sort out.

I realize this is a very controversial issue. We shall see, if this is true, when we get to heaven.

God bless,
jean

PS when checking more than one Commentary, many times difficult questions are maddenly omitted? Further, if I ask my pastor the the same question,he will certainly give a different response from yours. So here we are, we are left on our own with the Lord to guide us. Shall we pray.

 

[Axion]

bruno,
blasphemy? Don’t be absurd. She and Joseph were married.

The Bible doesn’t actually say they were married (ie went through the second stage of Hebrew marriage. The canopy ceremony.) It says, even when they went to Bethlehem that they were “betrothed”.

The Bible also reads in Mk.6:3 “Isn’t this the capenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
Aren’t his sisters here with us?”

The words for brother and sister in Aramaic, which the people saying these words used, actually mean only kinsman, and kinswoman, rather than strict sibling.

While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s BROTHERS in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that the mother of James and Joseph was ANOTHER Mary. Mary wife of Clopas/Alphaeus.

In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)

 

[MarieCB]

The Bible doesn’t actually say they were married (ie went through the second stage of Hebrew marriage. The canopy ceremony.) It says, even when they went to Bethlehem that they were “betrothed”.

According to the Jewish sources I’ve looked at, the completion of the marriage occurs during the “home-taking”, when the husband takes his wife home. (Like Isaac taking Rebecca into his tent - the assumption was clear that entering a man’s house/tent meant she was having sex with him.) They are legally married during the betrothal period. Ending the betrothal would have required a divorce. Jewish marriage doesn’t require a ceremony or a rabbi.

In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)

You’re willing to accept that she had an intact hymen after childbirth and never had sex with her husband, BUT if she did have sex with her husband, you’re unwilling to accept that she could have had seven children live to adulthood?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul–you’re taking one verse in one letter, reading it apart from the rest of Paul’s letters, the Bible, and all of Church teaching. Yes, Paul in 1 Cor made the statement that he wished all should be unmarried like him but as a concession he could recommend marriage. You have to read that in context. You can’t conclude that he was simply and permanently recommending celibacy over marriage in all situations and for all times. Besides, we have no idea whether or not Paul was ever married. He was unmarried at the time of his writing the letter, but we don’t know if he was a widower, or divorced, or later married. And, again the issue of celibacy is related to but different from virginity.

let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some to this and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

 

[BrianH]

Point three.
Who said there are only “two apostles named James”? There could just as easily be three including a third James. As you well know, being an apostle is not limited to the twelve.

 

[diggerdomer]

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some to this and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

So the most meaningful point from all this as you note is that Paul wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord. That’s the most significant point. Whether that happens in the married or single life is secondary.

Cheers

 

[NDN]

Well, I suppose one must first accept as fact that she took a lifetime vow of celibacy, which I find very difficult to believe.

She was already married! Jewish betrothal was far more than our idea of engagement. It was an actual, but incomplete, marriage. They were considered husband and wife, and if she had sex with another man, she would have been STONED. Not shamed, stoned until dead. If people thought she had had sex with Joseph, that was shameful, but not nearly so bad.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a lifetime vow of celibacy would have been completely alien to the ancient Jews. And you folks say that not only Mary vowed celibacy, but Joseph, too? Jewish law allowed the courts to force a man to marry if he was still single after the age of 20. Celibacy was illegal for men. Refusal to have sex with your wife was grounds for divorce.

Where does all this vow of chastity stuff come from, anyway? It seems quite alien to everything I can find about Jewish thinking, and Mary and Joseph - and Jesus - were Jews.

If that was the case, why didn’t the law force Jesus to marry, or St Paul? Those are 2 rather famous celibate Jews we are aware of. Pax Christi

 

[hopefull]

For some great (name removed by moderator)ut on the history of celibacy in the Church, dating all the way back to the Apostles, see:

[

Please let’s all stick to facts and not just dismiss people’s arguments without some proof to the contrary. Truth is what matters, not opinion.

Let those who have ears, hear! We are 2000 years later, in a totally different social context. It seems so arrogant to think we can reinterpret what happened then in terms of today’s mileu, and just ignore two millenia of history and doctrine.From Diggerdomer:Answer: And very few women gave birth to the Son of God either; like one?Answer: He was in the desert, wearing animal skins and eating locusts…read the words of the angel to Zechariah…abstaining from strong drink was part of the Nazarite vow.Answer: How can anyone say the Essenes didn’t profess celibacy? Google “Essenes” and “celibacy or celibate” and you get over 29,000 HITS!Answer: BUT HE wasn’t.married…and it wasn’t because He was Jewish, it was because of His total dedication to His Mission. So too, Mary and Joseph were totally dedicated to their Mission.](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7052[/URL)

 

[Roy5]

MARY AS PERPETUAL VIRGIN? OTHER CHILDREN?

 I've already suggested that it doesn't make any difference whether or not Mary had other children. They would have been a blessing regardless. And certainly sexual relations usually are an normal and positive part of a happy marriage, That is recognized both in religion and law.

 And there are references - already cited - that suggest that Mary had sexual relations with her husband and that there were other children, at least other brothers.

 One Biblical account has troubled me since I first heard it as a child. It tells how the boy Jesus was 'lost' after his parents had left the temple. They returned to Jerusalem and found him in three days. Luke 2:41-50,

  Now, I would have to wonder about parents who left a city like Jerusalem and traveled a distance without knowing precisely where their only child was. One explanation that might help a little is that Mary and Joseph had other children, younger children that needed more attention, and assumed that Jesus would be with the older children. Still, not a great explanation, but it would make the story a little less problematic.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nazirite vow-- Very few took this vow compared to the entire Jewish population. Also, it was not necessary for it to be a perpetual commitment, it could have been taken for only a certain period of time.
Answer: And very few women gave birth to the Son of God either; like one?

Ok, but your statement has nothing to do with my comment so if you disagree with me please post something more pertinent.

John the Baptist-- Where does it say he was a virgin? Let alone a perpetual one?
Answer: He was in the desert, wearing animal skins and eating locusts…read the words of the angel to Zechariah…abstaining from strong drink was part of the Nazarite vow.

Thanks. But again your comments have nothing to do with what I said. What do your comments have to do with the issue of virginity?

Essenes, what source do you know of that claims they were perpetual virgins? I’ve never read anything that suggested perpetual virginity for them.
Answer: How can anyone say the Essenes didn’t profess celibacy? Google “Essenes” and “celibacy or celibate” and you get over 29,000 HITS!

Well, Google is not my first recourse for authoritative information. And the fact that some large number of hits are returned for certain search parameters is not terribly convincing. Anyway, to get back to the topic, no doubt celibacy or asceticism or continence was an important part of that group. But there’s no indication that perpetual virginity was part of it. There have been numerous ascetical movements in all religions/philosophies/societies. The fact that some parts of a group choose to be continent (no sexual relations) does not by itself indicate it was a normative pattern for the group, or a preferred pattern.

Jesus–I don’t think we can say for sure that his choice of celibacy had anything to do with his being Jewish? Nowhere in the Bible does it say he chose that life because of his Jewish background. I’d think the dominate influence of a Jewish background would be to get married–go forth and multiply. The vast majority of Jews were married.
Answer: BUT HE wasn’t.married…and it wasn’t because He was Jewish, it was because of His total dedication to His Mission. So too, Mary and Joseph were totally dedicated to their Mission.

Good. You agree. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married had nothing to do with his Jewish background. That was part of the point raised by others that I agreed with and was responding to.

Please let’s all stick to facts and not just dismiss people’s arguments without some proof to the contrary. Truth is what matters, not opinion.

Let those who have ears, hear! We are 2000 years later, in a totally different social context. It seems so arrogant to think we can reinterpret what happened then in terms of today’s mileu, and just ignore two millenia of history and doctrine.

I agree. If you think I have stated anything not factually true, or dismissed people’s opinions please let me know so I can be better informed.

Cheers