Jesus' Siblings

[odhiambo]

Jesus had cousins only. No brothers and no sisters.

 

[Godmachine]

Essentially yes - I have studied NT Greek and have a theology degree in NT Studies. The issue you raise is an old chestnut and well explained in any decent Gospel commentary. I apologise if I have been too peremptory in my attempt to assist you above.

That’s funny, my fire and brimstone Baptist friend also has a degree in theology and he disagrees with you. What’s even funnier is I disagree with both of you. But on this particular topic I am going to have to admit to him that he was right about this. He’s going to gloat and be all self-righteous but it isn’t going to change my position at all. I must say thank you both for giving me yet another reason to remain an agnostic.

 

[Godmachine]

Not illogical, but you do need to be aware of two things:

a) people in previous times did not use language exactly the same way that we do - think even of the way the word ‘gay’ has changed meaning in just a few short decades, from ‘happy’ or ‘cheerful’ to ‘homosexual’

How many meanings does the word “first” have?

b) what you read as ‘first’ is an English translation from a Greek or Hebrew word. Not all words in those languages translate perfectly into English. Not all words in ANY non-English language translate perfectly into English. This may be one of those cases where a little meaning is lost in translation.

“First” generally means first in any language. It implies there is either another or at least the possibility of another. Perhaps the word “first” is just an unnecessary word in that line of scripture. Perhaps it should be omitted. But I wonder how many times that has happened already, words omitted or substituted. No wonder I don’t know what to believe.

 

[LilyM]

How many meanings does the word “first” have?

“First” generally means first in any language. It implies there is either another or at least the possibility of another. Perhaps the word “first” is just an unnecessary word in that line of scripture. Perhaps it should be omitted. But I wonder how many times that has happened already, words omitted or substituted. No wonder I don’t know what to believe.

How many of the hundreds (at least) of languages spoken on this planet do you know fluently to make that gross and totally unjustified generalisation?

You could equally say ‘aunt’ generally means ‘aunt’ in any language - but at the same time, I know that in the language of the country my parents are from, we can use the word ‘aunty’ to address literally any female who is older than us who is not our mother, granny, great-granny or mother-in-law! People who do not speak that language are unlikely to know this, and so lack the expertise necessary to make such a generalisation.

 

[Godmachine]

How many of the hundreds (at least) of languages spoken on this planet do you know fluently to make that gross and totally unjustified generalisation?

You could equally say ‘aunt’ generally means ‘aunt’ in any language - but at the same time, I know that in the language of the country my parents are from, we can use the word ‘aunty’ to address literally any female who is older than us who is not our mother, granny, great-granny or mother-in-law! People who do not speak that language are unlikely to know this, and so lack the expertise necessary to make such a generalisation.

In that case we might as well toss out ALL English translations of scripture. How do we know that even a single word matches its original meaning?

 

[LilyM]

In that case we might as well toss out ALL English translations of scripture. How do we know that even a single word matches its original meaning?

Toss out your English translations of ‘War and Peace’ and ‘Madame Bovary’ - or Dante’s Inferno - while you’re at it.

For that matter toss out your Shakespeare - scholars are STILL arguing over the exact meaning of some of his lines! And he didn’t even write in a foreign language.

Just as those other English translations - and our Shakespeare - are not useless or impossible to come to grips with simply because the fact of translation allows of a little ambiguity, neither is the Bible.

This, among other rasons, is why we believe Jesus entrusted to His apostles (and their successors, the leaders of the Catholic church) the authority to bind and loose - meaning that, guided by the Holy Spirit, they ensure that scripture is interpreted correctly.

In fact scripture itself, in Peter’s epistle, warns against allowing individuals to merely decide willy-nilly on their own what scripture means. And there is the episode in Acts where Philip talks to the Ethiopian, who humbly admits that he (and all of us) need God-given authoritative teachers to help us interpret scripture. ‘How can I understand’, he says of the book of Isaiah which he is reading ‘unless it is explained to me?’ Good question.

 

[Church_Militant]

Here, check this out. The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So you’re telling me I’m going to go to hell for not believing that James was Jesus’ half-brother, the son of Joseph, even though scripture says clearly that his father was not Joseph but Alpaeus?

Do you believe in something only because there is a “threat” that you will go to hell if you don’t? Is that the Catholic way?

And who on earth says it was not a term of endearment? Jesus called the sons of Zebedee sons of thunder - He did use terms of endearment, which were recorded as such in scripture. There is no reason this couldn’t have been another.

I have never seen Liturgical services that called them as such. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[adrift]

Do you believe in something only because there is a “threat” that you will go to hell if you don’t? Is that the Catholic way?

I have never seen Liturgical services that called them as such. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Is this a question of the best defense is an offense? You failed to address

even though scripture says clearly that his father was not Joseph but Alpaeus?

 

[adrift]

In that case we might as well toss out ALL English translations of scripture. How do we know that even a single word matches its original meaning?

It is similar to Luke saying that Mary was engaged to Joseph. The word engaged has a different connotation than it did then. Engagement then was the first part of a marriage.

What you are doing is insisting that todays definition is the same as it was 2000 years ago.

All children who opened the womb were given the distinction of being first born, at the moment of birth. It wasn’t given to them after a second birth but at their birth even if there were never anymore children. You are applying your own definition. You are assuming a usage that isn’t intended. The intent of the author was to show that Mary was a virgin nothing more.

 

[Godmachine]

Toss out your English translations of ‘War and Peace’ and ‘Madame Bovary’ - or Dante’s Inferno - while you’re at it.

For that matter toss out your Shakespeare - scholars are STILL arguing over the exact meaning of some of his lines! And he didn’t even write in a foreign language.

Just as those other English translations - and our Shakespeare - are not useless or impossible to come to grips with simply because the fact of translation allows of a little ambiguity, neither is the Bible.

This, among other rasons, is why we believe Jesus entrusted to His apostles (and their successors, the leaders of the Catholic church) the authority to bind and loose - meaning that, guided by the Holy Spirit, they ensure that scripture is interpreted correctly.

In fact scripture itself, in Peter’s epistle, warns against allowing individuals to merely decide willy-nilly on their own what scripture means. And there is the episode in Acts where Philip talks to the Ethiopian, who humbly admits that he (and all of us) need God-given authoritative teachers to help us interpret scripture. ‘How can I understand’, he says of the book of Isaiah which he is reading ‘unless it is explained to me?’ Good question.

If I need someone to explain it to me then why should I bother reading it at all? Why not just skip a step and go right to the interpreters? Fact is, the interpreters don’t always agree with one another. So really we are left wandering in the dark. If you can say a simple word like “first” is open to broad interpretation, then what about other words? “Virgin” for example. Does the original text really refer to Mary as a virgin or is that word a translation of another word open to interpretation? Seems to me you are picking and choosing which words and phrases agree with your doctrine and discarding those that do not. With so much disagreement over different interpretations of scripture among Christians, it seems clear to me as an outsider that none of them really know what they are talking about. None of them really know what they think they know about the life and times of their savior.

 

[Godmachine]

It is similar to Luke saying that Mary was engaged to Joseph. The word engaged has a different connotation than it did then. Engagement then was the first part of a marriage.

What you are doing is insisting that todays definition is the same as it was 2000 years ago.

All children who opened the womb were given the distinction of being first born, at the moment of birth. It wasn’t given to them after a second birth but at their birth even if there were never anymore children. You are applying your own definition. You are assuming a usage that isn’t intended. The intent of the author was to show that Mary was a virgin nothing more.

If the intent was to show that Mary was and remained a virgin, then the word “first” is not only unnecessary but misleading.

 

[adrift]

If I need someone to explain it to me then why should I bother reading it at all? Why not just skip a step and go right to the interpreters? Fact is, the interpreters don’t always agree with one another. So really we are left wandering in the dark. If you can say a simple word like “first” is open to broad interpretation, then what about other words? “Virgin” for example. Does the original text really refer to Mary as a virgin or is that word a translation of another word open to interpretation? Seems to me you are picking and choosing which words and phrases agree with your doctrine and discarding those that do not. With so much disagreement over different interpretations of scripture among Christians, it seems clear to me as an outsider that none of them really know what they are talking about. None of them really know what they think they know about the life and times of their savior.

The problem seems to be that you don’t want to understand the who what and where of the Bible. You seem to think that you can sit down and read it as if it were written today. If you did that with Shakespeare, you would not have any better luck. The term used by the Gospel writer had a theological implication. First born did not imply a second born. The distinction was given immediately upon birth when there wasn’t a second child. You are trying to impose your modern mind to an ancient practice.

Did you really start this thread to learn or just to:slapfight:

 

[adrift]

If the intent was to show that Mary was and remained a virgin, then the word “first” is not only unnecessary but misleading.

Only in your mind because you are not using the same definition that they knew.

 

[adrift]

If the intent was to show that Mary was and remained a virgin, then the word “first” is not only unnecessary but misleading.

Only in your mind because you are not using the same definition that they knew.

Firstborn was used to designate the child that opened the womb. That was their definition. It had great significance. The child that opened the womb inherited.
John the Baptist was also a firstborn son.

Not only were they pointing out Mary’s virginity but also that of Jesus is the first born of all creation.

 

[Godmachine]

The problem seems to be that you don’t want to understand the who what and where of the Bible. You seem to think that you can sit down and read it as if it were written today. If you did that with Shakespeare, you would not have any better luck. The term used by the Gospel writer had a theological implication. First born did not imply a second born. The distinction was given immediately upon birth when there wasn’t a second child. You are trying to impose your modern mind to an ancient practice.

I think I understand the who, what and where of the Bible pretty well. I do not read it as if it were written today but the fact is, I live today. I did not live then. If the Bible is to be understood by 20th century people perhaps it needs to be rewritten (AGAIN) in language we understand. I do not think my modern interpretation of the word “first” in the verse I referred to is invalid. You can interpret it any way you please, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Did you really start this thread to learn or just to:slapfight:

LOL…A little of both I suppose. I enjoy learning but I also enjoy a good argument. Thanks to all of you for giving me a little of both.

 

[adrift]

I think I understand the who, what and where of the Bible pretty well. I do not read it as if it were written today but the fact is, I live today. I did not live then. If the Bible is to be understood by 20th century people perhaps it needs to be rewritten (AGAIN) in language we understand. I do not think my modern interpretation of the word “first” in the verse I referred to is invalid. You can interpret it any way you please, but I respectfully disagree with you.

LOL…A little of both I suppose. I enjoy learning but I also enjoy a good argument. Thanks to all of you for giving me a little of both.

You made me smile.

Ok I understand why you think first born means others but can’t you see that in the Jewish religion it has a specific meaning that is about inheritance and the importance and rights that a child who opens the womb enjoys.

How would you translate it so it would convey that meaning?

 

[Godmachine]

You made me smile.

Ok I understand why you think first born means others but can’t you see that in the Jewish religion it has a specific meaning that is about inheritance and the importance and rights that a child who opens the womb enjoys.

Perhaps we need a Jewish person involved in this discussion.

How would you translate it so it would convey that meaning?

How about “inheritor” or “successor”? I don’t know…that’s why I’m agnostic.

 

[adrift]

Perhaps we need a Jewish person involved in this discussion.

How about “inheritor” or “successor”? I don’t know…that’s why I’m agnostic.

That wouldn’t quite do it because it connects with other text. Jesus is called the first born of creation.

Collisions

15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

I also found this The word “first-born”

(Greek word “prototokos”) signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership.
You see this with Abraham. His first born son was not the one who inherited or took leadership.

So now how would you change it to express this concept. Your inheritor or successor does not.

By the way, I enjoy a good debate that is why your answer made me smile.

 

[Trebor135]

It would not matter to him because it isn’t “biblical”. To him if it isn’t in the Bible, it isn’t true. And if it is in the Bible it is LITERALLY true. The guy is a hoot. I have a lot of fun arguing with him. Of course I have a lot of fun arguing with some of you guys too.

It should matter to him, because the Bible can’t be interpreted without reference to the political, social, and religious environment in which it was written. To do otherwise for the sake of protecting one’s arguments would be shortsighted, parochial, and intellectually dishonest. The article I linked to shows that St. Mary had to be ever-virgin for Judaism-specific reasons.