Jesus....His brothers and sisters?

[VociMike]

Fredricks:

The scripture indicates the children were not believers prior to his resurrection.

All the more reason they would not have allowed her to go live with John.

Mary had relatives, I do not think anyone denies that. She traveled with them scripture shows. Why Christ gave Mary’s care to John is known only to Christ himself but Mary had family, and early Christian tradition and scripture clearly support that.

“Family” is not the same as “birth children”. Mary’s birth children simply would not have allowed her to go live with John, especially if they were not believers.

A friend of mine is also fond of saying that only John was there, which while literally true, no one else could have had the care of Mary, should not detract from the special place John was in for Christ to have done so.

It would not have mattered who was there if Mary had other birth children. They would have taken her into their homes. To suggest that Christ would have put His mother in the position of either living apart from her very own children, or in the position of disobeying Him to stay with her family, is simply preposterous.

 

[jbuttrey]

A theological dispute on Mary’s virginity is also an attack on the church tradition of celebacy.

But we have Mother Teresa and John Paul II as current witnesses to the power of celebacy.

John

 

[thistle]

If Jesus had had siblings (blood brothers and sisters) or half brothers and sisters then why were none of them at the cross when Jesus died?
Jesus entrusted his mother to the beloved disciple. This would not have made sense if he had close family.
For me this is the clearest argument against the existence of blood or half siblings.

 

[Church_Militant]

thistle:

If Jesus had had siblings (blood brothers and sisters) or half brothers and sisters then why were none of them at the cross when Jesus died?
Jesus entrusted his mother to the beloved disciple. This would not have made sense if he had close family.
For me this is the clearest argument against the existence of blood or half siblings.

Exactly! If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Catholic_Dude]

thistle:

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Mamma Mia! Thats one big happy family.
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; 13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. 15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty)

 

[John_Henry]

Fredricks:

early Christian tradition and scripture clearly support that.

Nonsense:

Origen

“The Book [the *Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (*Commentary on Matthew *2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (*Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (*Discourses Against the Arians *2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (*The Man Well-Anchored *120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (*Letters *63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (*Letter to Bishop Anysius *[A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (*Holy Virginity *4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (*Heresies *56 [A.D. 428]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (*Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God *4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (*Sermons *22:2 [A.D. 450]).

 

[Fredricks]

I said EARLY
Your 248 source supports what I am saying, biological or step brothers, your next source is 300 years after the fact. Hardly close enough to be convincing.

 

[Fredricks]

thistle:

If Jesus had had siblings (blood brothers and sisters) or half brothers and sisters then why were none of them at the cross when Jesus died?
Jesus entrusted his mother to the beloved disciple. This would not have made sense if he had close family.
For me this is the clearest argument against the existence of blood or half siblings.

How can you say they were not close when she travelled with them??
All we know for sure is she spent a great deal of time with them.
They were not there. NO one but a few women and John was.
Neither was the man who Catholicism claims is his successor either, Peter.

 

[Fredricks]

All the more reason they would not have allowed her to go live with John.

“Family” is not the same as “birth children”. Mary’s birth children simply would not have allowed her to go live with John, especially

if they were not believers.

It would not have mattered who was there if Mary had other birth children. They would have taken her into their homes. To suggest that Christ would have put His mother in the position of either living apart from her very own children, or in the position of disobeying Him to stay with her family, is simply preposterous.

So after their brother(or step) rose from the dead, how exactly were they going to argue?
How were they not going to “allow” it if they were not there to do so.
As far as them not being present, who knows where they were. Where was Peter?

 

[thistle]

How can you say they were not close when she travelled with them??
All we know for sure is she spent a great deal of time with them.
They were not there. NO one but a few women and John was.
Neither was the man who Catholicism claims is his successor either, Peter.

They were not there because they did not exist!!

 

[VociMike]

Fredricks:

So after their brother(or step) rose from the dead, how exactly were they going to argue?

Scripture says that Mary went to live in John’s house from that hour onward. Jesus didn’t rise from the dead for three days. The word of His resurrection would not have gotten around to unbelievers (your assertion) until well after He rose. Therefore, Mary’s unbelieving other sons would not have had any reason to let Mary go with John from that hour onward.

How were they not going to “allow” it if they were not there to do so.

Not where? Just because they weren’t at the cross doesn’t mean they were not in their home towns nearby.

You still haven’t addressed the fact that Jesus was forcing Mary to either abandon her other children, or to disobey Him. What son forces his mother to live with an outsider rather than her own children? You think that the alleged fact that they were not believers (gee, not a single one?!) at that point is enough reason for Mary to spend the rest of her days with John, but what about when they became believers? What reason was there after they became believers for Mary to stay away from her own children (and scripture is very clear that she spent the rest of her days with John)? Further, since when is unbelief by some family members ever a reason to leave them? Is that the model of a Christian family, that one leaves any members who do not believe?

No, the more one looks into this argument the weaker and more preposterous it becomes.

 

[Tom]

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? The obvious answer is yes He did, and still does!
drbo.org:

Matthew 12:46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Also Mark 3, 31-35)

I am the brother of Jesus, but am I also the son of Mary?

Apocalypse 12:17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Yes I am the son of Mary. So don’t mess with my family!
So what’s the point? Mary is my mother and Jesus is my brother, if I were around when the Bible was being written you’d read, “the brothers of Jesus, Joseph, James and Tom”
The question is: Are you a brother of Jesus? Are you a son (or daughter) of Mary?

 

[John_Henry]

Fredricks:

I said EARLY
Your 248 source supports what I am saying, biological or step brothers, your next source is 300 years after the fact. Hardly close enough to be convincing.

Fair enough. I must have misread your post. Didn’t know you were allowing for step-brothers. That’s perfectly in harmony with Church teaching.

 

[Fredricks]

For any Protestant interested

"(a) While Mary had a sister (John 19:25), there is no evidence that she was named Mary; nor is there any parallel case of two Jewish sisters having the same name; nor is there any evidence that she was the wife of Cleophas; (b) It could not be true that his cousins are meant because “his brethren” were not apostles, nor believers, and he had cousins who believed and were among the apostles, if this theory be correct; (c) Nor does it prove anything that the names James and Joses occur as those of the children of another Mary, as the names were very common. There are five Jameses in the New Testament, several Judes, and Josephus, who lived at this time, names twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joseses, and sixteen Judes.

On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language. To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in all the passages cited above. The “brothers” of Jesus are constantly represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her children. These cogent facts cannot be set aside by a tradition or by conjectures. Alford well sums up the argument in a few words which we quote:

1. There were four persons known as the brethren “of him,” or “of the Lord,” not of the number of the Twelve.
2. That these persons are found in all places, but one or two, in immediate connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
3. That not a word is anywhere dropped to prevent us from inferring that the brothers and sisters were his relations in the same literal sense that we know his mother to have been.
4. All explanations which make them aught else than the children of his mother are mere conjectures.
5. The silence of the Scripture narrative leaves Christians free to believe that they were real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord. 50"

 

[geno75]

I know there are other biblical references. But the way Mother Mary is addressed in Acts on the day of Pentecost clearly shows the authors intention of making known to the readers that Jesus was the only child of Mary.

“…Mary the mother of Jesus.”

Wheter or not Jesus had stepbrothers could be debated, but nothing to be divided over.

 

[Eden]

Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

www.scripturecatholic.com

Protestants sometimes use Matt. 1:25 to claim that Mary was a virgin until Christ’s birth but not after. The Greek expression “heos hou” which is translated as “until” is examined here:

www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/svend-heos1.htm

 

[Batjacboy]

Fredricks:

**“nor is there any parallel case of two Jewish sisters having the same name” **

How do you know this? I know a Catholic family around the corner who named all their daughters Mary, and each goes by her middle name. Do you have the family records of every Jewish family who lived in the first century, or are you just guessing? And please don’t say, “There’s no parallel in the Bible”, since we know the Bible doesn’t contain all of these records.

"It could not be true that his cousins are meant because “his brethren” were not apostles, nor believers"

Nonsense.

If you read John 20:17, it says:

“Jesus saith to [Mary Magdalene]: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.”

Now, the next verse says:

“Mary Magdalen cometh, and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me.”

Notice she did not go to Christ’s “brothers”, she went to his disciples, yet another example of brothers/brethren not meaning blood brothers.

“On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children.”

More nonsense. It says in the Old Testament, that the firstborn must be consecrated to the Lord (within the first weeks). If your nonsense was correct, no child could be consecrated until the next child was born, since, “after all, you can’t call him the firstborn until you have a second born.” Obviously false. Also, the OT states that at the first Passover, every Egyptian family without blood on the lintels lost their firstborn. Every one. But according to your theory, any family with an only child would be spared, since after all, you can’t have a “firstborn” until you have a second born. But it says every family was involved.

(BTW, firstborn refers to birthright, which an only child would inherit, regardless of whether there’s a second-, third-born etc.)

** and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language. **

One example to prove your theory is nonsense:

2 Samuel 6:23: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

According to your theory, Michal had children after she was dead. Nice.

**To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in all the passages cited above. The “brothers” of Jesus are constantly represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her children. **

Please go back and read all the previous posts which clearly give the “hints” that they were not her children.*

 

[Batjacboy]

Here’s a brief summary of Fredrick’s misleading claim about Matthew 1:25:

"“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shows, by diverse examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future.

Thus it is said, Genesis 8:6-7, that “Noah sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth.” That is, did not return any more.

Also Isaias 46:4, God says: “I am till you grow old.” Who dare infer that God should then cease to be.

Also in the first book of Machabees 5:54, “And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace.” That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned.

God saith to his divine Son: “Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool.” Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity.

St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; “Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel”, etc. Ex. 13:2."

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

For any Protestant interested

On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language.

The expression “heos” which is translated from the Greek as “until” is used in the Bible elsewhere:

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus.

Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”. If Fredericks analysis is correct, imagine what that means regarding these passages:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until) Jesus is with us until the end of the world but after that He is not.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until), Anna was a widow until she was 84. After that, she was not a widow.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until), Jesus is saying to take a seat at His hand until after He has made until your enemies are your footstool. So, what happens after enemies are your footstool?

Here are more examples of the same “until” which refers to the Virgin in Matt. 1:25:

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.
Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Fredricks]

Batjacboy:

Here’s a brief summary of Fredrick’s misleading claim about Matthew 1:25:

It was not my claim at all. I posted a QUOTE because I was asked to in a PM. I even said it was only for interested Protestants.