Jesus half bothers

  • Thread starter Thread starter George_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

George_M

Guest
I don’t know for sure what the church says about Jesus having bothers, but I know that the church says that the Virgin Mary stayed vigin. I was looking at Jude last night to find out why Luther wanted it out of the bible. That’s when I noticed that Jesus had half bothers.It was also in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. The way it sounds to me it wasn’t saying bothers and sisters in Christ it was saying my bothers. Then they name his bothers. I would be led to believe by the way it was wrote that he did have bothers and sisters. That being the case how can we say that the Virgin Mary stayed a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus? George
 
The word used for “brothers” was also used for “cousins” or “kinsmen”—there was no specific word that meant “brother” as in blood brother.

If Jesus had had brothers, why would He have given His Mother to John at the foot of the cross? That would have been a gross violation of custom.

Also, some of the “brothers” of Jesus are elsewhere clearly identified as being the offspring of someone else (sorry this is vague, as I’m just going from memory). So clearly the term is not meant as “blood brother”.

I would go to the link provided in John Henry’s post. I would guess that what I’ve just written is covered there in greater detail.
 
Just read the links above, you’ll be fine. Always remember that there is not one thing in the Bible that contradicts the Church and there is not one thing in Church teaching that contradicts anything in the Bible. In it’s 2000 year history the Church has answered and defended alomst everything you could think of. There is always an answer.
 
How could Jesus even have half brothers if Joseph wasn’t his biological father? The “half brothers” argument goes back to Mary not remaining a virgin, because ANY children she would have had, would have been only half brothers.

I’m amazed that so many people insist that Mary did not remain a virgin. In fact, I find that the most insistent are typically guys who cannot imagine a man (Joseph) being called to a celebate life while living with Mary as her husband. God gives each of us the grace to live out our calling.
I’ve even heard the argument that for Mary and Joseph to remain celebate would have been a violation of God’s plan for marriage!
 
40.png
Sherlock:
So clearly the term is not meant as “blood brother”.QUOTE]

actually, it’s not all that “clear”. while i don’t necessarily believe mary and joseph had other children together (i am not rcc by the way, but am not attacking the rcc), it is not clear in scripture that they did not. we get that from tradition not scripture. also, quick question: i’m not sure the translation in the catholic bible so please quote me it if you can, but how do you reconcile Matthew 1:25, “but he (joseph) had no union with her (mary) until after she gave birth to a son. and he gave him the name Jesus.”

the answer to the question of, “if mary had other children, why did Jesus give her to john” is that Jesus did many things contrary to cultural traditions. it was extremely scandalous when he spoke with the woman at the well or forgave sins (even though He had the power to do so) or allowed the bottle of perfume broken over him. He was crucified for being “scandalous” so to deny his brothers (again, not that i believe this, i am just giving you the other side of the coin) might have been exactly what he wanted to do since they had tried to stop him in his public ministry.
Click to expand...
 
bengal fan:
how do you reconcile Matthew 1:25, “but he (joseph) had no union with her (mary) until after she gave birth to a son. and he gave him the name Jesus.”
Click to expand...
This same question was asked of Jerome over 1600 years ago.

His response is still valid.

You can view it at: Responding to Helvidius

Scroll down to #6 if you want to cut to the quick.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
bengal_fan:

from
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek:* heos*, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
 
40.png
Salmon:
Piece of cake:

Brothers of Christ

Brothers and Perpetual Virginity

Peace in Christ…Salmon
Click to expand...
Howdy !!
Code: 
Michel, here ... amateur apologist in search of how to defend the church!!

I've posted this question on the apologetics forum, but have not seen a response, yet. (So many posts, maybe i missed it)

Elizabeth is referred to as 'cousin' or something less generic than the Aramaic word used for brothers, cousins, close family friends, et cetera.  Why do we see this less generic term?

The answer I've seen to this question on these boards explains how Mary and Elizabeth were related.  That's not the question.  I don't doubt that they are cousins.

I'm wondering if the text where 'brothers' is used was orginally Aramaic and the text where Elizabeth is described was originally written in Greek (where more adjectives were available).

Please help !!!

Thanks to all that post here ... i LOVE the discussions!!
michel
 
Bengal fan,

In response to my saying "some of the “brothers” of Jesus are elsewhere clearly identified as being the offspring of someone else… so clearly the term is not meant as “blood brother”, you wrote: "actually, it’s not all that “clear”.

What is unclear? If, in Scripture, individuals are referred to as the “brothers” of Jesus, and yet elsewhere they are identified as being the sons of someone other than the Virgin Mary, I think it’s pretty clear that these individuals are not the blood brothers of Jesus. Given the generic nature of the term used (“brother” was used broadly, and could mean kinsman or cousin), this seems obvious.

Regarding your other question, "how do you reconcile Matthew 1:25, “but he (joseph) had no union with her (mary) until after she gave birth to a son. and he gave him the name Jesus”, I see that others have already answered it. But I might as well repeat them: “until” does not always imply that the activity referred to happened afterwards :“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Please go to the links that others have provided for more detail if you wish.

You wrote: “the answer to the question of, “if mary had other children, why did Jesus give her to john” is that Jesus did many things contrary to cultural traditions.”

I’m afraid that just doesn’t cut it. Jesus did not fly in the face of cultural traditions unless there was a point to be made or that particular tradition was interfering with devotion to God (I am thinking here of His statement regarding the Sabbath). I see no point in insulting His “brothers”, as would be the case if you maintain your position (which is a weak one anyway, given the weight of other evidence).

You wrote: “(i am not rcc by the way, but am not attacking the rcc)”.

Please be aware that the term you are using (rcc) is inaccurate. The proper term is the Catholic Church. The “Roman” (western or “Latin”) Catholic Church is merely one rite within the Catholic Church.
 
Bengal_fan,

Actually, there is quite a lot of Scriptural justification for the Catholics’ dogmas on Mary. There certainly is no verse that says explicitly “Mary remained a virgin her whole life;” however, verses such as the angel’s greeting, Elizabeth’s greeting, and Mary’s own declaration in Luke 1:46-55 shed some light on who Mary is and where her place is in the Church.

I’m no expert and cannot do the dogmas related to Mary justice, particularly in an internet post, but there is a great audio series by a former Protestant turned Catholic apologist (Tim Staples) that lays out the Biblical basis for the dogmas in a clear and thorough manner. It’s entitled, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed.” Here is a link to audio materials on the St. Joseph Radio website, stjosephradio.org/audiotapes.html.

Many critics of Catholicism are not really interested in hearing the Church’s true teaching on a subject but just interested in convincing the Catholic that they are in the wrong church :(. You, however, seem genuinely interested in the facts, therefore, I recommend the Tim Staples resource so that you can hear an accurate presentation of the Catholic position and then decide for yourself whether you think it lines up with Scripture.

Blessings,

Jim
 
Michel,

My understanding, for what it’s worth, is that the term used is actually “kinswoman”. I don’t think “cousin” is accurate, but perhaps others on this forum could weigh in.
 
again (how many times do i have to say this before people stop automatically attacking what i say?) i did not say i believed this argument, i was just presenting it. thank you to the folks who understood that and responded accordingly
40.png
Salmon:
bengal fan:

This same question was asked of Jerome over 1600 years ago.

His response is still valid.

You can view it at: Responding to Helvidius

Scroll down to #6 if you want to cut to the quick.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
Click to expand...
salmon, thank you for the reference, but it sort of makes for the argument. if this was being debated in the fourth century, then it is not as clear cut as the cc (sorry for including the r for roman before even thought it is the catholic church centered in rome hence the roman catholic church) makes it out to be. they could very well be right, and if we hold to the dogma of papal infallibility, they are, but to say that this is a cut and dry issue is to be naive. there is biblical and historical arguments for and against. yes, the term for “brethren” could mean cousin, but it could also be translated biological brother or sister. yes, joseph could have had another wife, but not all of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were identified as being from her so that doesn’t rule out mary as a possibility. and yes, there is scriptural evidence for the marian doctrines, but they are not blatant. that was my point. we trust the church’s interpretation of these passages and historical tradition to get the doctrines. if they were blatant in scripture there would be far less arguing over it. again let me say that i don’t necessarily believe this argument, i am just trying to give the other side and to show that the other side does have scriptural ground to stand on and we can’t dismiss them as idiots as so many on this site tend to do.
 
macaddict-:
Here is an artical about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity from a Jewish perspective, using Jewish Law.

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
Click to expand...
good article! question (and this may have been addressed in the article and i missed it): is it saying that God had sex with mary? i know this is a popular muslim argument against the virgin birth and Jesus being the Son of God, but from the wording of this article i can see where they get their ire from. if you all would (whoever wants to or can) read the article and let me know what you thing about this. again (i feel i always need to say this but i still get attacked anyway) i don’t believe that God had sex with mary, but am just asking the question does anyone think this article implies it?
 
Bengal Fan,

I read the article and, well, let’s be practical here. God miraculously caused an egg inside Mary to be fertilized when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her. That’s not exactly “having sex”. Besides, that would sorta negate the virgin birth. The point of the article is that by virtue of her pregnancy she was consecrated to God and, therefore, Joseph would not have been free to have relations with her. Why remain married to her then? (logical next question). To provide physical protection for her, to provide for her and her son and, more importantly, to prevent Mary being seen as an adulturess and Jesus seen as illegitimate.

Tim Staples does a great job of showing how the Ark of the Covenant was a “type” for Mary. It was consecrated to God and contained the Ten Commandments (the Word - like Christ is the Word), Aaron’s staff (authority) and a few other items that indicate characteristics of Christ (here my apologetics motor is giving out - hence the blue square on my “reputation”). Anyway, like the Ark was consecrated to God and not to be touched (people died for that one), Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus) was consecrated to God. When something or someone is consecrated to God, that status is irrevocable.

Sorry for the mediocre explanation - Tim Staples does a lot better job and there’s much more on his audio series.

Blessings,

Jim
 
jim,
i’ll give you some points for that response. it was very good 👍 . i agree with your interpretation, but the language saying that “such and such is a euphemism for marital relations” rubs me wrong. i guess, i like the article i just wish it was worded a bit differently. thanks for the response.
 
hmmm… this makes more sense to me personally…

God says *“And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN.” * Acts 1:13-14

These verses are now calling the Apostles by name, and then Mary the mother of Jesus with His brethren are now mentioned. Are not all in the upper room Brethren? Yes they are, it’s just illustrated here that Jesus’ Mother and siblings are in the room as well. What better way to illustrate the fact that Jesus has an earthly family as well as His Church family. Think about it, all the Apostles are mentioned by name, THEN Mary and the BRETHREN of Jesus are mentioned. Is this an attempt to show the two types of brethren? Indeed it is.

God says "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.
John 7:1-5

This I must concede is my favorite verse on this subject. How can it not be realized that “His brethren” here is BLUNTLY speaking of siblings? The argument is mute for those that would claim, “brethren” = “disciple” as well. How? The BRETHREN in this passage are telling Jesus to be on His way and go perform His miracles so that His “DISCIPLES” will see it “For neither did his brethren believe in him.”

God says
“But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD’S BROTHER.” Galatians 1:19
There were issues linking the direct source of the website I got this info… send me a message if you want more… I published my contact info in my profile…
 
40.png
JesusIsTheWay:
The argument is mute for those that would claim, “brethren” = “disciple” as well.
Click to expand...
There are certainly times when brethren does equal disciple. Nevertheless, you are right to say that this is not the case everytime. But no one on this board was saying it was the case everytime. So you are refuting thin air.

Your reasoning on Jn 7 is also faulty. The “brothers” speaking to Jesus in this passage cannot be his blood brothers. Here’s why. They are telling him what to do. In Jesus’ culture, it was improper for younger brothers to do such a thing. Thus, these people were either older brothers (which is impossible because Jesus was firstborn), or some other familial relation. Which accords with what everyone has been saying so far; namely that there is no aramaic word for “cousin” and so the word “brother” is used instead of “relation-that-is-son-of-mother’s-sister”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top