Jesus had siblings?

[nevadagardener]

9 And they returned from the tomb and told all this to the Eleven and to all the others.
10 The women were Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. And the other women with them also told the apostles,
11 but this story of theirs seemed pure nonsense, and they did not believe them.
12 Peter, however, went off to the tomb, running. He bent down and looked in and saw the linen cloths but nothing else; he then went back home, amazed at what had happened.
13 Now that very same day, two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem,
14 and they were talking together about all that had happened.
15 And it happened that as they were talking together and discussing it, Jesus himself came up and walked by their side;
16 but their eyes were prevented from recognising him.
17 He said to them, ‘What are all these things that you are discussing as you walk along?’ They stopped, their faces downcast.
18 Then one of them, called Cleopas, answered him, ‘You must be the only person staying in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have been happening there these last few days.’
19 He asked, ‘What things?’ They answered, ‘All about Jesus of Nazareth, who showed himself a prophet powerful in action and speech before God and the whole people;
20 and how our chief priests and our leaders handed him over to be sentenced to death, and had him crucified.
21 Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free. And this is not all: two whole days have now gone by since it all happened;
22 and some women from our group have astounded us: they went to the tomb in the early morning,
23 and when they could not find the body, they came back to tell us they had seen a vision of angels who declared he was alive.
24 Some of our friends went to the tomb and found everything exactly as the women had reported, but of him they saw nothing.’
25 Then he said to them, ‘You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said!
26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?’
27 Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.
28 When they drew near to the village to which they were going, he made as if to go on;
29 but they pressed him to stay with them saying, ‘It is nearly evening, and the day is almost over.’ So he went in to stay with them.
30 Now while he was with them at table, he took the bread and said the blessing; then he broke it and handed it to them.
31 And their eyes were opened and they recognised him; but he had vanished from their sight.
32 Then they said to each other, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us as he talked to us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?’
33 They set out that instant and returned to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven assembled together with their companions,
34 who said to them, ‘The Lord has indeed risen and has appeared to Simon.’
35 Then they told their story of what had happened on the road and how they had recognised him at the breaking of bread.
36 They were still talking about all this when he himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you!’
37 In a state of alarm and fright, they thought they were seeing a ghost.
38 But he said, ‘Why are you so agitated, and why are these doubts stirring in your hearts?
39 See by my hands and my feet that it is I myself. Touch me and see for yourselves; a ghost has no flesh and bones as you can see I have.’
40 And as he said this he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 Their joy was so great that they still could not believe it, as they were dumbfounded; so he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’
42 And they offered him a piece of grilled fish,
43 which he took and ate before their eyes.
44 Then he told them, ‘This is what I meant when I said, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, was destined to be fulfilled.’
45 He then opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
46 and he said to them, 'So it is written that the Christ would suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
47 and that, in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses to this.
49 ‘And now I am sending upon you what the Father has promised. Stay in the city, then, until you are clothed with the power from on high.’
50 Then he took them out as far as the outskirts of Bethany, and raising his hands he blessed them.
51 Now as he blessed them, he withdrew from them and was carried up to heaven.
52 They worshipped him and then went back to Jerusalem full of joy;
53 and they were continually in the Temple praising God.

 

[chaunceygardner]

A doctrine was created to fit what certain people wanted to believe. Over time, it was embellished and blown up to something quite amazing, and far, far from what the Bible says, or anything that is necessary to our salvation.

Neither Luke nor Matthew seem to have a problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. Luke says **“she gave birth to her firstborn son.” **Matthew tells us that Joseph **“had no relations with her until she bore a son”. ** So the clear implication here is that Mary and Joseph lived together as husband and wife and had other children, since if you had no other children, there would be no need to label one “firstborn”. And then two of the Gospels apparently consider the circumstances of Jesus’ birth and the virginity of Mary to not even be worth mentioning.

Then there is all the dodging and weaving around the meaning of “family”, and “brothers and sisters”, and on and on. James, the “brother of the Lord” MUST have been a spiritual brother, not the brother of Jesus? Funny that Paul and others mention him AS the brother of Jesus. If they weren’t true brothers, why was it mentioned? What would have been the point of using that term since it wouldn’t have added anything to what was being said, UNLESS it really meant James WAS the brother of Jesus?

The problem is no one thought about turning Mary into what she has become until after all this was recorded. So the Church has to perform daring feats of linquistic gymnastics to make their doctrine about Mary even somewhat plausible. And in the last 150 years they have issued more dogmatic proclamations that put her almost on a par with Jesus, from being born without original sin to their bodily assumption into heaven. If the Church hasn’t officially named Mary Co-Redeemer yet, that should be coming soon.

Why do you even need Jesus, if Mary can do it all? Why is so much attention on her rather than on Jesus? And if you don’t believe it, just add up all the Holy Days each year in honor of Mary. Think about how much and how often you pray to Mary vs. God. Then take a look at the banner on the home page of this website - whose image is front and center (actually on the left)? Not the adult Jesus teaching his disciples, not Jesus on the Cross, not Jesus being baptized by John, but You Know Who.

Why is it even necessary that Mary be ever virgin? Does it have any bearing on what she was called to do, and what her role is? Not that I can think of. Why could she not have been a person just like anyone else? Throughout scriptures, both new and old, God chooses normal, everyday people to accomplish wonderful things. In fact, He still does (think Mother Teresa here).

The Church would have been much better off leaving its doctrine about Mary as it was written in the NT. Jesus was born the son of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. STOP.

Nothing more. This thread then becomes a moot point. Nothing changes in the Gospel, Jesus is still the Son of God, and everyone else is who they are supposed to be. And the focus remains on Jesus, as it rightly should.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

A doctrine was created to fit what certain people wanted to believe. Over time, it was embellished and blown up to something quite amazing, and far, far from what the Bible says, or anything that is necessary to our salvation.

Neither Luke nor Matthew seem to have a problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. Luke says **“she gave birth to her firstborn son.” **Matthew tells us that Joseph **“had no relations with her until she bore a son”. ** So the clear implication here is that Mary and Joseph lived together as husband and wife and had other children, since if you had no other children, there would be no need to label one “firstborn”. And then two of the Gospels apparently consider the circumstances of Jesus’ birth and the virginity of Mary to not even be worth mentioning.

Then there is all the dodging and weaving around the meaning of “family”, and “brothers and sisters”, and on and on. James, the “brother of the Lord” MUST have been a spiritual brother, not the brother of Jesus? Funny that Paul and others mention him AS the brother of Jesus. If they weren’t true brothers, why was it mentioned? What would have been the point of using that term since it wouldn’t have added anything to what was being said, UNLESS it really meant James WAS the brother of Jesus?

The problem is no one thought about turning Mary into what she has become until after all this was recorded. So the Church has to perform daring feats of linquistic gymnastics to make their doctrine about Mary even somewhat plausible. And in the last 150 years they have issued more dogmatic proclamations that put her almost on a par with Jesus, from being born without original sin to their bodily assumption into heaven. If the Church hasn’t officially named Mary Co-Redeemer yet, that should be coming soon.

Why do you even need Jesus, if Mary can do it all? Why is so much attention on her rather than on Jesus? And if you don’t believe it, just add up all the Holy Days each year in honor of Mary. Think about how much and how often you pray to Mary vs. God. Then take a look at the banner on the home page of this website - whose image is front and center (actually on the left)? Not the adult Jesus teaching his disciples, not Jesus on the Cross, not Jesus being baptized by John, but You Know Who.

Why is it even necessary that Mary be ever virgin? Does it have any bearing on what she was called to do, and what her role is? Not that I can think of. Why could she not have been a person just like anyone else? Throughout scriptures, both new and old, God chooses normal, everyday people to accomplish wonderful things. In fact, He still does (think Mother Teresa here).

The Church would have been much better off leaving its doctrine about Mary as it was written in the NT. Jesus was born the son of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. STOP.

Nothing more. This thread then becomes a moot point. Nothing changes in the Gospel, Jesus is still the Son of God, and everyone else is who they are supposed to be. And the focus remains on Jesus, as it rightly should.

Have you ever read a study bible? Do you know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic terms? The word ‘brothers’ refers to COUSINS.

Study bibles also explain the term ‘first-born.’ It also explains the term ‘until.’ They do not mean what you assumed them to mean.

Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A doctrine was created to fit what certain people wanted to believe. Over time, it was embellished and blown up to something quite amazing, and far, far from what the Bible says, or anything that is necessary to our salvation.

Hmmm…since the early Church was responsible for dealing effectively with major heresies such as Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, etc. when they appeared, why is it that we have no record of any outcry against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary when it first appeared?

Neither Luke nor Matthew seem to have a problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. Luke says **“she gave birth to her firstborn son.” **Matthew tells us that Joseph **“had no relations with her until she bore a son”. **So the clear implication here is that Mary and Joseph lived together as husband and wife and had other children, since if you had no other children, there would be no need to label one “firstborn”. And then two of the Gospels apparently consider the circumstances of Jesus’ birth and the virginity of Mary to not even be worth mentioning.

Firstborn was a title indicative of specific rights under Jewish law. Even a woman who had only one child could refer to her sole offspring as her “firstborn”. The fact that Matthew wrote “until” does not imply that the action subsequently ceased. If I say that someone “gave up smoking until the day he died”, does that imply that he took up the habit again once he was dead?

Then there is all the dodging and weaving around the meaning of “family”, and “brothers and sisters”, and on and on. James, the “brother of the Lord” MUST have been a spiritual brother, not the brother of Jesus?

It only appears that way because you do not understand the underlying concepts.

Funny that Paul and others mention him AS the brother of Jesus. If they weren’t true brothers, why was it mentioned? What would have been the point of using that term since it wouldn’t have added anything to what was being said, UNLESS it really meant James WAS the brother of Jesus?

Or a close kinsman. Get it?

The problem is no one thought about turning Mary into what she has become until after all this was recorded.

And what is it that she has been turned into?

So the Church has to perform daring feats of linquistic gymnastics to make their doctrine about Mary even somewhat plausible. And in the last 150 years they have issued more dogmatic proclamations that put her almost on a par with Jesus, from being born without original sin to their bodily assumption into heaven. If the Church hasn’t officially named Mary Co-Redeemer yet, that should be coming soon.

If the Church infallibly declares Mary to be Co-Redemptrix, then you can bet that it is only because it is true. But, you don’t really know what the Church means by that term, do you? It just freaks you out, doesn’t it?

Why do you even need Jesus, if Mary can do it all? Why is so much attention on her rather than on Jesus?

Who said Mary can do it all? Mary did not die on the cross; Jesus did.

And if you don’t believe it, just add up all the Holy Days each year in honor of Mary.

Every Sunday (indeed every day), we honor Jesus with our celebration of the Eucharist. Why don’t you add up the feasts and get back to us with some actual numbers, okay?

Think about how much and how often you pray to Mary vs. God.

You have no idea how I pray.

Then take a look at the banner on the home page of this website - whose image is front and center (actually on the left)? Not the adult Jesus teaching his disciples, not Jesus on the Cross, not Jesus being baptized by John, but You Know Who.

Hmmm…I see the Incarnation. You see Mary. Maybe I’m not the one with the “problem”.

Why is it even necessary that Mary be ever virgin?

It was not necessary. It was God’s choice.

Does it have any bearing on what she was called to do, and what her role is?

What was her role? To be the New Ark of the Covenant? Then I assert that it was appropriate for Mary to be and remain a virgin.

Not that I can think of. Why could she not have been a person just like anyone else? Throughout scriptures, both new and old, God chooses normal, everyday people to accomplish wonderful things. In fact, He still does (think Mother Teresa here).

You’re right. God was becoming a man, but it was no big deal; no need for anything special.

The Church would have been much better off leaving its doctrine about Mary as it was written in the NT.

Would you be comfortable with the doctrine of the Trinity as written in the New Testament? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: are they one God or three? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or from the Father and the Son? Are they co-substantial, co-equal and co-eternal? Do they share one nature? How do you know these things from the NT alone? Or do you depend upon the theology of the Catholic Church which worked all this out for you?

Would you be comfortable with understanding Jesus as written in the New Testament? Does the NT tell you that Jesus had one nature or two? One will or two?

Asking questions about God, Jesus, or Mary is normal and appropriate.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hmmm…since the early Church was responsible for dealing effectively with major heresies such as Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, etc. when they appeared, why is it that we have no record of any outcry against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary when it first appeared?

When did it first “appear”? I don’t believe that it was an accepted doctrine in the first few centuries the Church, and was not made “official” until the Lateran Council in the 600’s. There would have been no “outcry” if it was not discussed or if different viewpoints were not yet considered heretical.

Firstborn was a title indicative of specific rights under Jewish law. Even a woman who had only one child could refer to her sole offspring as her “firstborn”. The fact that Matthew wrote “until” does not imply that the action subsequently ceased. If I say that someone “gave up smoking until the day he died”, does that imply that he took up the habit again once he was dead?

Or a close kinsman. Get it?

No. I think this a great stretch. See final comments at end of this post.

And what is it that she has been turned into?

The FACT that it took 1900 years to get from the Virgin Birth to Perpetural Virginity, to the Immaculate Conception, to the Assumption, clearly shows what the Church has done with Mary. She was blessed as it is, but the Church has turned her into a figure that dwarfs even Jesus in the minds of many Catholics.

If the Church infallibly declares Mary to be Co-Redemptrix, then you can bet that it is only because it is true. But, you don’t really know what the Church means by that term, do you? It just freaks you out, doesn’t it?

I would not make that bet, because there is no way anyone could prove it to be true. I think I do understand what the term Co-Redemptrix means (believe it or not, even I have access to the Catholic Encyclopedia and other resources to answer such questions). If we give that title to Mary, then we should give it to others in the Church who also played a big part in the redemption and salvation process. My issue is that Mary’s role is made to be second only to Jesus, which I can not agree with. And no, none of this “freaks me out”.

Who said Mary can do it all? Mary did not die on the cross; Jesus did.

Thank you for saying that, which is exactly my point. We must remember that Jesus was the ONE who died on the Cross in order to put the role of Mary in the right perspective.

Every Sunday (indeed every day), we honor Jesus with our celebration of the Eucharist. Why don’t you add up the feasts and get back to us with some actual numbers, okay?

You have to admit a feast day focusing on Mary (or any other person) seems more “important” than a Sunday. I think most Catholics would feel that way. I did a little research on this and found at least 20 feast days, some of which are “major” (Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Solemnity (Jan. 1), Assumption) and others that focus on events or appearances (Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc), some of which may fall on a particular Sunday. I think that should clarify my point.

I have broached this subject with several Priests, wondering why there are so many Marian feast days and why they aren’t consolidated into just a couple of “big” days. They were sympathetic with my observations and idea, but obviously did not think that it would ever happen.

You have no idea how I pray.

The statement was rhetorical, not claiming I know how any individual prays but asking people to think about how and to whom they pray. From decades of fairly close contact with many Catholics, from reading actual Catholic Church publications, and from surfing through websites like this one, I have the impression that Mary is the center of a lot of Catholic prayer.

Hmmm…I see the Incarnation. You see Mary. Maybe I’m not the one with the “problem”.

(This is in reference to the banner of this website).

Just one of many examples where I see a misplaced focus.

It was not necessary. It was God’s choice.

What was her role? To be the New Ark of the Covenant? Then I assert that it was appropriate for Mary to be and remain a virgin.

• (This was in reference to the “necessity” of Mary being a perpetual virgin and her role in salvation.)*

This is where we disagree. I think it was the Church’s eventual “choice” to make Mary a perpetual virgin, which has no bearing on her initial role or on the events or teachings of the Gospel.

You’re right. God was becoming a man, but it was no big deal; no need for anything special.

It apparently wasn’t a big deal to Mark or John, since they don’t tell the story of the birth of Jesus. You may want to read both Gospels closely and see why that would be. I will give you a hint: Neither Mark nor John believed Jesus was the Son of God at His birth, and each saw His divinity differently.

Would you be comfortable with the doctrine of the Trinity as written in the New Testament? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: are they one God or three? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or from the Father and the Son? Are they co-substantial, co-equal and co-eternal? Do they share one nature? How do you know these things from the NT alone? Or do you depend upon the theology of the Catholic Church which worked all this out for you?

Would you be comfortable with understanding Jesus as written in the New Testament? Does the NT tell you that Jesus had one nature or two? One will or two?

I would need a whole other post or thread to discuss all that, but they are certainly very good questions, which I am pondering.

Asking questions about God, Jesus, or Mary is normal and appropriate.

Exactly what I am doing, thank you.

I will wrap this up by mentioning that there are at least 23 different references in the Gospels and Acts to “brothers” used in the sense of sons of the same parents. These are clearly contrasted with times that the term is used to describe “fellow believers” and companions. There IS a Greek word for brother (Adelphos). If the Church truly believed that the words written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why aren’t they translated that way?

Finally, the Bible approved by the USCCB has this as a note to Mark 6, regarding the word “brother”:

The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Thank you, Bishops of the U.S.

 

[paul_c]

ChaunceyGardner,

its pretty easy to show from scripture that the so called brothers of Jesus: James, Josas, Judas and Simon are actually not sons of Mary.

If you look at Matthew 27 55-56: you see the following women at Calgary:
55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

The same account is rendered in Matthew 15:40
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome

and in John 19:25

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala

Assuming that all are describing the same three women with Mary at the foot of the cross, a logical assumption, you can see by the color coding that the three were"

Mary Magdalene
Mary, the wife of Clopas and mother of James and Joses. (Clopas and Alpheus are one in the same and traditionally the borther of St. Joseph)
and Salome, the sister of Mary, wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John

This would show that the “brothers of the Lord” are actually his cousins.

 

[chaunceygardner]

ChaunceyGardner,

its pretty easy to show from scripture that the so called brothers of Jesus: James, Josas, Judas and Simon are actually not sons of Mary.

If you look at Matthew 27 55-56: you see the following women at Calgary:
55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

The same account is rendered in Matthew (Mark) 15:40
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome

and in John 19:25

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala

Assuming that all are describing the same three women with Mary at the foot of the cross, a logical assumption, you can see by the color coding that the three were"

Mary Magdalene
Mary, the wife of Clopas and mother of James and Joses. (Clopas and Alpheus are one in the same and traditionally the borther of St. Joseph)
and Salome, the sister of Mary, wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John

This would show that the “brothers of the Lord” are actually his cousins.

Not quite, but I do appreciate the “colorful” analysis. Note that I corrected your attribution of Matthew to Mark, since I knew that was the verse you were quoting.

Three of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) refer to many women, with no exact number. Some are identified. Luke doesn’t specifically name any! Your assumption that Salome from Mark is the “mother of the sons of Zebedee” referred to in Matthew is just that, an assumption. You COULD be right, but you could be wrong. Several references I checked say just that, it is a possibility.

First, we don’t know if each Gospel writer was referring to exactly the same women. Only Mary Magdalene is positively listed in each of the three. Mary the mother of Jesus is postively identified only by John, which brings up a whole other set of questions that we will set aside for now. Are there other passages that make the connections you assert regarding brothers not being real brothers?

Second, with such common names as James, Joseph and Joses, how do we know that the men referred to in these passages are all the same ones listed as disciples or brothers of Jesus? For example, Mark refers to “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses”, indicating that there is more than one person named James in the mix.

Third, you say Clopas is “traditionally” the brother of St. Joseph, but again that is an assumption that cannot be proven. I have seen where his wife was thought to be the sister of Mary, which would mean two sisters with the same name. That wouldn’t make sense either. Then one must ask if this Clopas is the same person as the Cleopas who met the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus? In that case, he was a disciple but there is no indication in Luke’s story that he was related to Jesus.

So we really don’t know the exact number of women at the crucifixion, or who they all were. Each Gospel writer could be picking out different women to “spotlight”. It is interesting to note that women seemed to dominate this group, and were identified by Luke as mourning and lamenting him, and were women who had ministered to Jesus in Galilee, according to Mark. So Jesus’ strongest disciples appear to have been women, which also leads to several interesting questions not on this topic.

So although I do appreciate your valiant attempt to prove that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are not really His brothers, it was not quite successful.

And I would appreciate someone responding to my question in my earlier post. If the Church truly believed that the words written in the NT manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why aren’t they translated that way?

 

[paul_c]

Not quite, but I do appreciate the “colorful” analysis. Note that I corrected your attribution of Matthew to Mark, since I knew that was the verse you were quoting.

Three of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) refer to many women, with no exact number. Some are identified. Luke doesn’t specifically name any! Your assumption that Salome from Mark is the “mother of the sons of Zebedee” referred to in Matthew is just that, an assumption. You COULD be right, but you could be wrong. Several references I checked say just that, it is a possibility.

First, we don’t know if each Gospel writer was referring to exactly the same women. Only Mary Magdalene is positively listed in each of the three. Mary the mother of Jesus is postively identified only by John, which brings up a whole other set of questions that we will set aside for now. Are there other passages that make the connections you assert regarding brothers not being real brothers?

Second, with such common names as James, Joseph and Joses, how do we know that the men referred to in these passages are all the same ones listed as disciples or brothers of Jesus? For example, Mark refers to “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses”, indicating that there is more than one person named James in the mix.

Third, you say Clopas is “traditionally” the brother of St. Joseph, but again that is an assumption that cannot be proven. I have seen where his wife was thought to be the sister of Mary, which would mean two sisters with the same name. That wouldn’t make sense either. Then one must ask if this Clopas is the same person as the Cleopas who met the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus? In that case, he was a disciple but there is no indication in Luke’s story that he was related to Jesus.

So we really don’t know the exact number of women at the crucifixion, or who they all were. Each Gospel writer could be picking out different women to “spotlight”. It is interesting to note that women seemed to dominate this group, and were identified by Luke as mourning and lamenting him, and were women who had ministered to Jesus in Galilee, according to Mark. So Jesus’ strongest disciples appear to have been women, which also leads to several interesting questions not on this topic.

So although I do appreciate your valiant attempt to prove that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are not really His brothers, it was not quite successful.

And I would appreciate someone responding to my question in my earlier post. If the Church truly believed that the words written in the NT manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why aren’t they translated that way?

the reason that he says the younger James is because the older James is the son of Zebedee, the brother of John.

And yes, they could be talking about 3 different women and different James and Joses but that would be a lot of coincidence, don’t you think? You can believe what you want, but in my view, the most likely situation is that the “brothers” of Jesus are actually cousins, the sons of Joseph’s brother Clopas. This is consistent with 2000 year old tradition that Mary was ever virgin and seems to be supported by scripture. Admittedly Not being an expert in ancient language, I have read countless times that in the language of the Bible, all close relatives are referred to as brothers.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Not quite, but I do appreciate the “colorful” analysis. Note that I corrected your attribution of Matthew to Mark, since I knew that was the verse you were quoting.

Three of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) refer to many women, with no exact number. Some are identified. Luke doesn’t specifically name any! Your assumption that Salome from Mark is the “mother of the sons of Zebedee” referred to in Matthew is just that, an assumption. You COULD be right, but you could be wrong. Several references I checked say just that, it is a possibility.

First, we don’t know if each Gospel writer was referring to exactly the same women. Only Mary Magdalene is positively listed in each of the three. Mary the mother of Jesus is postively identified only by John, which brings up a whole other set of questions that we will set aside for now. Are there other passages that make the connections you assert regarding brothers not being real brothers?

Second, with such common names as James, Joseph and Joses, how do we know that the men referred to in these passages are all the same ones listed as disciples or brothers of Jesus? For example, Mark refers to “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses”, indicating that there is more than one person named James in the mix.

Third, you say Clopas is “traditionally” the brother of St. Joseph, but again that is an assumption that cannot be proven. I have seen where his wife was thought to be the sister of Mary, which would mean two sisters with the same name. That wouldn’t make sense either. Then one must ask if this Clopas is the same person as the Cleopas who met the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus? In that case, he was a disciple but there is no indication in Luke’s story that he was related to Jesus.

So we really don’t know the exact number of women at the crucifixion, or who they all were. Each Gospel writer could be picking out different women to “spotlight”. It is interesting to note that women seemed to dominate this group, and were identified by Luke as mourning and lamenting him, and were women who had ministered to Jesus in Galilee, according to Mark. So Jesus’ strongest disciples appear to have been women, which also leads to several interesting questions not on this topic.

So although I do appreciate your valiant attempt to prove that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are not really His brothers, it was not quite successful.

And I would appreciate someone responding to my question in my earlier post. If the Church truly believed that the words written in the NT manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why aren’t they translated that way?

What part of the concept of a translation into brothers from the word for cousins are you having trouble understanding? It’s quite simple.

I’d suggest you get a good study Bible and read it. An amazing and humbling experience.

 

[chaunceygardner]

What part of the concept of a translation into brothers from the word for cousins are you having trouble understanding? It’s quite simple.

I’d suggest you get a good study Bible and read it. An amazing and humbling experience.

Appreciate the advice.

Here is why I am having trouble understanding; I made these points and asked the question a couple of posts back, and no one has yet responded to it:

There are at least 23 different references in the Gospels and Acts to “brothers” used in the sense of sons of the same parents. These are clearly contrasted with times that the term is used to describe “fellow believers” and companions.

There IS a Greek word for brother (Adelphos) which is different than the Greek word for cousin.

The Bible approved by the USCCB has this as a note to Mark 6, regarding the word “brother”:

The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way?

 

[paul_c]

Appreciate the advice.

Here is why I am having trouble understanding; I made these points and asked the question a couple of posts back, and no one has yet responded to it:

There are at least 23 different references in the Gospels and Acts to “brothers” used in the sense of sons of the same parents. These are clearly contrasted with times that the term is used to describe “fellow believers” and companions.

There IS a Greek word for brother (Adelphos) which is different than the Greek word for cousin.

The Bible approved by the USCCB has this as a note to Mark 6, regarding the word “brother”:

If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way?

Translators have a difficult job. They need to stay true to the text, while accounting for nuance and different meanings between languages. Let me give you another example.

In Matthew 16,18 There is the famous text18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,:
.
In the original language in which it was stated, this sentence would say,
And so I say to you, you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

now the translator is forced into a box here. because on one hand, he wants to note that the Saint was named Peter . but in doing so, it loses the linkage that Rock would have given. Most translators opt to retain the name Peter, because it is familiar, even though this leads some Protestants to question what the rock is that the church is built on.

similarly, the translator has a choice of using brother, companion, cousin or close relative in Mark 6. Because the word used is most often translated brother, that’s how most translators have handled it, because even in English, brother can mean close companion, and that doesn’t force the translator to make a judgement on the relationship.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Appreciate the advice.

Here is why I am having trouble understanding; I made these points and asked the question a couple of posts back, and no one has yet responded to it:

There are at least 23 different references in the Gospels and Acts to “brothers” used in the sense of sons of the same parents. These are clearly contrasted with times that the term is used to describe “fellow believers” and companions.

There IS a Greek word for brother (Adelphos) which is different than the Greek word for cousin.

The Bible approved by the USCCB has this as a note to Mark 6, regarding the word “brother”:

If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way?

Thanks. You are overcomplicating something that is really quite simple. Get the Ignatius Study Bible and read the Gospels.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Translators have a difficult job. They need to stay true to the text, while accounting for nuance and different meanings between languages. Let me give you another example.

In Matthew 16,18 There is the famous text18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,:
.
In the original language in which it was stated, this sentence would say,
And so I say to you, you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

now the translator is forced into a box here. because on one hand, he wants to note that the Saint was named Peter . but in doing so, it loses the linkage that Rock would have given. Most translators opt to retain the name Peter, because it is familiar, even though this leads some Protestants to question what the rock is that the church is built on.

similarly, the translator has a choice of using brother, companion, cousin or close relative in Mark 6. Because the word used is most often translated brother, that’s how most translators have handled it, because even in English, brother can mean close companion, and that doesn’t force the translator to make a judgement on the relationship.

The question remains unanswered.

The translator could have written: “You are Stone, and upon this rock I will build my church”, or less literally, “You, Peter, are the rock on which I will build my church”. All kinds of ways, I agree.

If I were to say “I am your brother”, that could mean that I am your real brother or a brother in the faith, depending on the context and words that would come before or after. As Paul used it, we know he meant brother in Christ.

If I were to say “George is my brother”, most people would assume that George and I have the same parents. Again, the context might change that assumption, but taken by itself that would be the typical thought.

So when the Bible refers to people by name who are called the brothers of Jesus, one should take that just as it is stated. And it is stated that way in several places, by different people, in the Greek manuscripts. Not “relative”, or “son of the brother of…”, but “brother”. It would clearly appear that the writers of those manuscripts considered these men to be true brothers of Jesus.

And why not, since to three of the four Gospel writers, Jesus was not eternally divine. Only John considers Him as such. So to those other three, and to Paul, Jesus having true brothers was not an issue.

Even our current Catholic Bible is clear about the reason for the question of meaning, that it is due to the Church’s faith in the eternal virginity of Mary. Otherwise, it is a non-issue, as it was when the first Gospels and letters of Paul were written.

 

[paul_c]

The question remains unanswered.

The translator could have written: “You are Stone, and upon this rock I will build my church”, or less literally, “You, Peter, are the rock on which I will build my church”. All kinds of ways, I agree.

If I were to say “I am your brother”, that could mean that I am your real brother or a brother in the faith, depending on the context and words that would come before or after. As Paul used it, we know he meant brother in Christ.

If I were to say “George is my brother”, most people would assume that George and I have the same parents. Again, the context might change that assumption, but taken by itself that would be the typical thought.

So when the Bible refers to people by name who are called the brothers of Jesus, one should take that just as it is stated. And it is stated that way in several places, by different people, in the Greek manuscripts. Not “relative”, or “son of the brother of…”, but “brother”. It would clearly appear that the writers of those manuscripts considered these men to be true brothers of Jesus.

And why not, since to three of the four Gospel writers, Jesus was not eternally divine. Only John considers Him as such. So to those other three, and to Paul, Jesus having true brothers was not an issue.

Even our current Catholic Bible is clear about the reason for the question of meaning, that it is due to the Church’s faith in the eternal virginity of Mary. Otherwise, it is a non-issue, as it was when the first Gospels and letters of Paul were written.

Wow, you really believe that only John thought Jesus was eternally divine? How did you come up with that revelation? In Matthew 17;5, God speaks from the cloud, declaring that Jesus is his son, listen to him. Is this not a statement of divinity from Matthew? Mark starts off his Gospel wiht the line: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God). . Don’t you think this means he thought Jesus was divine? In luke 3:22 we have this statement of divinity: And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. So it is clear that all the Gospel writers acknowledged Jesus’ divinity.
Be careful not to apply 21st century language clues to 1st century sensibilities. Remember, in first century Palestine, they were very clannish, with extended families having much greater meaning than we now do. They didn’t even have a word for cousin, because all close relatives were considered family. so don’t get caught up in this. I already showed you how it can be shown through scripture that they were likely cousins.

Why, by the way, do you think the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was ever virgin? I think its because its true and the church teaches the truth. What other motivation would they have? And by the way, many Protestants agree with this. Even the Muslims agree (surprisingly enough).

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The question remains unanswered.

The translator could have written: “You are Stone, and upon this rock I will build my church”, or less literally, “You, Peter, are the rock on which I will build my church”. All kinds of ways, I agree.

If I were to say “I am your brother”, that could mean that I am your real brother or a brother in the faith, depending on the context and words that would come before or after. As Paul used it, we know he meant brother in Christ.

If I were to say “George is my brother”, most people would assume that George and I have the same parents. Again, the context might change that assumption, but taken by itself that would be the typical thought.

So when the Bible refers to people by name who are called the brothers of Jesus, one should take that just as it is stated. And it is stated that way in several places, by different people, in the Greek manuscripts. Not “relative”, or “son of the brother of…”, but “brother”. It would clearly appear that the writers of those manuscripts considered these men to be true brothers of Jesus.

And why not, since to three of the four Gospel writers, Jesus was not eternally divine. Only John considers Him as such. So to those other three, and to Paul, Jesus having true brothers was not an issue.

Even our current Catholic Bible is clear about the reason for the question of meaning, that it is due to the Church’s faith in the eternal virginity of Mary. Otherwise, it is a non-issue, as it was when the first Gospels and letters of Paul were written.

Here again you are overcomplicating simple matters.

Neither you nor I am equipped to fully understand Scripture without the aid of a study Bible. Holy Mother Church is a stool with three legs: Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. Remove one leg and we fall.

Since you refuse to go directly to the source, why should we think you will accept any of OUR answers?

 

[inkaneer]

The question remains unanswered.

The translator could have written: “You are Stone, and upon this rock I will build my church”, or less literally, “You, Peter, are the rock on which I will build my church”. All kinds of ways, I agree.

If I were to say “I am your brother”, that could mean that I am your real brother or a brother in the faith, depending on the context and words that would come before or after. As Paul used it, we know he meant brother in Christ.

If I were to say “George is my brother”, most people would assume that George and I have the same parents. Again, the context might change that assumption, but taken by itself that would be the typical thought.

So when the Bible refers to people by name who are called the brothers of Jesus, one should take that just as it is stated. And it is stated that way in several places, by different people, in the Greek manuscripts. Not “relative”, or “son of the brother of…”, but “brother”. It would clearly appear that the writers of those manuscripts considered these men to be true brothers of Jesus.

And why not, since to three of the four Gospel writers, Jesus was not eternally divine. Only John considers Him as such. So to those other three, and to Paul, Jesus having true brothers was not an issue.

Even our current Catholic Bible is clear about the reason for the question of meaning, that it is due to the Church’s faith in the eternal virginity of Mary. Otherwise, it is a non-issue, as it was when the first Gospels and letters of Paul were written.

Your position that Jesus had sibling brothers [born of Mary and Joseph] rests on a strict interpretation of the Greek word ‘adelphos [plural-adelphoi]’ as meaning a sibling brother.
My question to you is this. Is a strict interpretation of adelphos [plural adelphoi] correct? I say it isn’t. I say therefore, that you are wrong in forcing an interpretation that cannot be supported by proper exogesis of the scriptures.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Your position that Jesus had sibling brothers [born of Mary and Joseph] rests on a strict interpretation of the Greek word ‘adelphos [plural-adelphoi]’ as meaning a sibling brother.
My question to you is this. Is a strict interpretation of adelphos [plural adelphoi] correct? I say it isn’t. I say therefore, that you are wrong in forcing an interpretation that cannot be supported by proper exogesis of the scriptures.

You say I am wrong; I say you may be right, and I (and others who agree) may be right. Neither of us knows the answer to that question with total certainty, but will I go with how the Catholic Church’s own bible translates it. And the interpretation of that one word is not the only thing on which I based my position. The other reasons are provided in earlier posts. And I will ask again the question that no one has yet to answer:

**If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way? **

 

[paul_c]

You say I am wrong; I say you may be right, and I (and others who agree) may be right. Neither of us knows the answer to that question with total certainty, but will I go with how the Catholic Church’s own bible translates it. And the interpretation of that one word is not the only thing on which I based my position. The other reasons are provided in earlier posts. And I will ask again the question that no one has yet to answer:

**If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way? **

I gave you an answer to this 4 post back. You responded by saying that of the new Testament writers, only John believed Jesus to be divine. you haven’t responded to my response to that interpretation yet…

 

[chaunceygardner]

Wow, you really believe that only John thought Jesus was eternally divine? How did you come up with that revelation? In Matthew 17;5, God speaks from the cloud, declaring that Jesus is his son, listen to him. Is this not a statement of divinity from Matthew? Mark starts off his Gospel wiht the line: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God). . Don’t you think this means he thought Jesus was divine? In luke 3:22 we have this statement of divinity: And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. So it is clear that all the Gospel writers acknowledged Jesus’ divinity.
Be careful not to apply 21st century language clues to 1st century sensibilities. Remember, in first century Palestine, they were very clannish, with extended families having much greater meaning than we now do. They didn’t even have a word for cousin, because all close relatives were considered family. so don’t get caught up in this. I already showed you how it can be shown through scripture that they were likely cousins.

Why, by the way, do you think the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was ever virgin? I think its because its true and the church teaches the truth. What other motivation would they have? And by the way, many Protestants agree with this. Even the Muslims agree (surprisingly enough).

Sorry that it took so long to respond to your earlier post. Here it is now, along with comments on the above.

I did not mean to confuse you on my comments about the divinity of Jesus. I did not say what I believed. Rather, I pointed out that in the Gospels John is the only evangelist who clearly states that Jesus was ALWAYS divine. In other words, that Jesus existed before his human birth. ONLY John has that. I was connecting that question, of when Jesus became divine (or the Son of God) with Mary’s eternal virginity. My point was that in the early Church, since many Christians, including the earliest evangelists, did not consider Jesus as existing as God (or the Son of God) prior to His birth, there was no need to concern themselves with Mary’s virginity, or whether Jesus had brothers.

So Mark does not have the birth story, and starts his Gospel with John the Baptist. Because the “divine” nature of Jesus did not appear until the baptism, according to Mark, Jesus could have been conceived and born in the usual way. How Jesus was born made no difference in Mark’s theology.

In Mark, Jesus is called “God’s beloved Son” twice: When He is baptized, and during the Transfiguration. But to Mark, Jesus may not have been fully divine until His death or even His resurrection. Read Mark’s account of the Passion carefully and you will see that. Regarding the opening of Mark’s Gospel, he does say “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” but you must realize he is writing it after the fact, so of course he would know then who Jesus was. The “Son of God” is in parentheses as it was added later, and doesn’t appear in several “important” manuscripts of Mark, as the notes to Mark indicate.

In Luke, Jesus is the Son of God at His conception, which is why Luke has that story. Matthew is similar to Luke, but his birth story is about the fullfillment of prophecy. It appears that to Matthew, Jesus was made the Son of God at his birth. In Matthew’s baptism story, God tells the people there that Jesus is His Son. In Mark, He proclaims it directly to Jesus. So to Matthew, Jesus already “knows” He is the Son of God, and doesn’t need to be told. But the people around Him do. To Mark, the Baptism by John is the opening moment of Jesus’ ministry. This is when Jesus first learns of how special He is, and not before then.

John is quite a bit different and equates Jesus with being the Son of God from creation. The other three writers do not do that.

So we have several different times when Jesus “becomes” the Son of God, which range from the beginning of time up to His resurrection.

Since only John considered Jesus the Son of God prior to His birth, the Gospel writers say nothing about Mary being eternally virgin. In fact, as has been pointed out, there are numerous implications that Mary and Joseph had additional children, both in the Gospels and from Paul. Why would that be? Simply because NONE of these evangelists and disciples even considered Mary’s eternal virginity a possibility. The birth of Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit was plenty special all by itself. Nothing else was needed, and would have had no bearing on who Jesus was, what He said, or what He did.

Which “version” of when Jesus became the Son of God do I believe is correct? I am not sure, and I am not certain if it matters to our faith. Just as I don’t think it affects our faith if Mary and Joseph had other children.

 

[inkaneer]

You say I am wrong; I say you may be right, and I (and others who agree) may be right. Neither of us knows the answer to that question with total certainty, but will I go with how the Catholic Church’s own bible translates it. And the interpretation of that one word is not the only thing on which I based my position. The other reasons are provided in earlier posts. And I will ask again the question that no one has yet to answer:

**If the Church truly believed that the word “brother” written in the manuscripts meant “cousin” or “close relative”, why isn’t it translated that way? **

Because adelphos does not mean cousin. It means brother. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether adelphos should be interpreted strictly as a sibling or does it have also a more generic meaning. I say to force the strict interpretation on adelphos is incorrect exogesis and I can prove it. In Luke 22:32 Jesus calls the apostles Peter’s brothers. The English word used is ‘brethren’ but the Greek word is adelphos. Obviously not all the apostles were Peter’s brothers. In fact only one was. Again in Galations 1:19 Paul says he saw only one apostle besides Peter in Jerusalem and that was James whom he calls the Lord’s brother. There are only two Apostles named James. One is the brother of John and they are the sons of Zebedee. The other is the son of Alphaeus who is also known as Cleopas. Neither one is the son of Joseph. I say that this James is the son of Alphaeus and is a cousin of Jesus as Alphaeus and Joseph were brothers. And I can provide the scruiptures to prove that. But the bottom line is that a strict interpretation of adelphos as meaning only a sibling brother is wrong exegesis.