Jesus' Siblings

[pete_29]

If Jesus had siblings, then why did St. John have to take care of Mary after the Crucifixion. Under Jewish Law, shouldn’t that have been Jesus’ siblings responsibility?

 

[Godmachine]

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.

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong. But try telling him that. His entire world extends to the covers of his Bible and his own interpretations of it. To him, nothing else matters.

 

[Godmachine]

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

I have no idea what “first born of creation” means. Sounds to me like something that could be open to very broad interpretation.

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

Those were just the first words that came to mind for me. Again, I don’t know. I’m not picking sides on the question of whether or not Jesus had siblings. Actually I disagree with both sides because it appears neither side really knows. All they have are their own personal beliefs.

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

 

[adrift]

I have no idea what “first born of creation” means. Sounds to me like something that could be open to very broad interpretation.

Scripture is like that and the reason that we were left with the Church to guide us.

 

[TEPO]

Actually I disagree with both sides because it appears neither side really knows. All they have are their own personal beliefs.

Right… But what we do know for sure is that Mary was without sin. Those who claim that Mary had other children make the claim for unknown and irrelevant reasons. Nobody worships Mary, sooo… who cares.

 

[tabycat]

Then why does Luke 2:7 say “She gave birth to her first son…”? It does not say “only”, it specifically says “first” which implies there was a second. How do you explain that?

I’m my perents’ first born AND I’m their only born. Under first century AD Jewesh Law (if my memery is right) the first born sons had rights and responabliaties. :angel1:

 

[Trebor135]

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong. But try telling him that. His entire world extends to the covers of his Bible and his own interpretations of it. To him, nothing else matters.

Ahh, makes sense.

Well, we can at least say that solo scriptura–as opposed to sola scriptura, or are they ultimately the same thing?–is among the most destructive notions to come out of Western Christendom in the second millennium.

Ask the pastor why he considers the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books to be closed.

 

[Godmachine]

Right… But what we do know for sure is that Mary was without sin. Those who claim that Mary had other children make the claim for unknown and irrelevant reasons. Nobody worships Mary, sooo… who cares.

Perhaps you “know” Mary was without sin. I do not. Sounds more like a personal belief to me. What would the problem be if Mary had other children? Would that mean she had “sinned”?

 

[adrift]

Perhaps you “know” Mary was without sin. I do not. Sounds more like a personal belief to me. What would the problem be if Mary had other children? Would that mean she had “sinned”?

No, no sin was involved. It makes a difference because truth matters. It is an official teaching so not personal belief is involved. It is a revealed truth by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TEPO]

Perhaps you “know” Mary was without sin. I do not. Sounds more like a personal belief to me. What would the problem be if Mary had other children? Would that mean she had “sinned”?

It’s Catholic Dogma that Mary was without sin… Catholics must believe it.

If Mary had other children, as the Protestants insist, it would have not been a sin. It’s just that there is absolutely no merit in making the point because I think the point is only made in order to reduce Mary’s status from a God-figure to that of a nobody… Only problem is that nobody worships Mary… sooo… It’s a fools errand.

 

[Trebor135]

If Mary had other children, as the Protestants insist, it would have not been a sin. It’s just that there is absolutely no merit in making the point because I think the point is only made in order to reduce Mary’s status from a God-figure to that of a nobody… Only problem is that nobody worships Mary… sooo… It’s a fools errand.

Indeed. The only folks I’m aware of that worshipped St. Mary were the adherents of Collyridianism–a heresy of the fourth century.

 

[zz912]

Perhaps you “know” Mary was without sin. I do not. Sounds more like a personal belief to me. What would the problem be if Mary had other children? Would that mean she had “sinned”?

It doesn’t deal with sin, but with an appreciation for Who God is, and His immense holiness and magnitude. It is also understanding that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant. Understanding how holy the first Ark was, and how much more holy Mary is. It is also understanding that a mere mortal shall never enter the gate that the King has passed through (this is an OT reference that your friend will get, and probably get upset about).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am in a discussion on another forum with a fire and brimstone Baptist minister. I am a former Catholic. Naturally he is trying desperately to “save” me. I’ve been arguing that essentially his beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are no different from Catholic beliefs. He believes in one god, Jesus was the Son of God who healed the sick, performed miracles and so on. But still he insists that Catholics believe in a “false doctrine” because Catholics, among other things, pray to Mary and deny the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters in order to preserve Mary’s perpetual virginity. I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but rather try to gloss over the subject so as not to raise uncomfortable questions. But I held back on that argument because I am not sure if it is accurate. So I thought I would raise the subject here and see what Catholics have to say. Do you believe Jesus had brothers and/or sisters? If so what does that say about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

GodMachine
Can you tell us why you do not seem to be satisfied with the general level of Catholic consensus that has been presented thus far? Most of your original questions seem adequately covered. Namely:

(1) “his [your baptist minister] beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are no different from Catholic beliefs.”
I think it is now clear that Catholic beliefs are different on some matters. We believe, as a historical fact, that Jesus had no blood brother’s either through Mary (because Jesus was her only child) or through Joseph (because Joseph was not Jesus’s biological father). Personally I consider the historical issue of Jesus’s blood brothers (versus legal ones) of minor theological relevance for my faith.

(2) “… he insists that Catholics believe in a “false doctrine” …[they] deny the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters…”
Let’s first clarify. Catholic NT experts do not regard “…that Jesus had brothers and sisters…” is a clear fact in the NT. (For that matter they do not regard the perpetual virginity of Mary to be a fact proven by the NT either.)
The clear Catholic position today is that the NT alone has nothing conclusive to say re either historical assertion.
It is equally clear that many Protestant NT scholars (I am not sure of the degree of truly scholarly consensus on this amongst Protestant experts - I know Lutherans tend to agree with Catholics) do regard NT interpretation as clearly proving this as a fact.

Therefore Protestants, not surprisingly, are more dogmatic than Catholics on both these points when it comes to Biblical historical “evidence.” They say “no”, we say “no solid evidence either way.”

Re the “false doctrine” thing. Of course Protestant’s will hold to this. If Mary’s perpetual virginity cannot be evidenced conclusively in Scripture alone then it is unjustified speculation. However Catholics hold that the Bible is inconclusive either way and we also derive teachings we regard as true from sources outside of Scripture (tradition and magisterial pronouncements). Your minister is perfectly consistent and I respect that.

(3) “[Catholics] deny …brothers and sisters in order to preserve Mary’s perpetual virginity.”
This is a pure assertion and I do not see how it can ever be proven on its own terms independently of the blood brother thing. It is a perfectly fair and valid corollary IF the Bible did undoubtedly prove that Jesus had blood brothers from Mary. But if it cannot be proven in its own right, and the Bible is inconclusive, then the whole thing becomes circular and amounts to no more than “the blood-brother thing has to be the way we think it is because its consistent with a Catholic dogma conspiracy angle as well.”

Catholics could equally lampoon original Protestant need to see factitity of blood-brothers in the NT to theologically justify their own early political agendas (rejection of monasticism and celibate priesthood) …all the more so because no-one in the united Church (before Protestant/Catholic splits) seemed to have any great issue with the perpetuual virginity tradition which was solid from around 300AD up until the reformation around (1500s). But I see no point going here as it is purely conjecture and churlish to do so.

(4) “I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters…”
Sorry, we do deny that Jesus had blood brothers as mentioned above.

 

[Godmachine]

GodMachine
Can you tell us why you do not seem to be satisfied with the general level of Catholic consensus that has been presented thus far? Most of your original questions seem adequately covered.

As I’ve already mentioned, I am not taking sides one way or the other. I am not satisfied with the arguments from either side. It seems to help me think when I am able to share my thoughts and get some feedback, especially from those with whom I disagree. I’m always looking for a new angle, trying to see things from a different perspective. In that regard you have all been very helpful and I am grateful for your responses. Oh yeah, and sometimes I just like to argue. I apologize if that offends you.

 

[po18guy]

Then why does Luke 2:7 say “She gave birth to her first son…”? It does not say “only”, it specifically says “first” which implies there was a second. How do you explain that?

In the ancient Hebrew culture, the “firstborn” son was consecrated to the Lord, out of every family (Exodus 13:2). Didn’t matter of there was one or 10. It was the firstborn, even if an only child, to which that honor was given. Made sense back then, but not so much now.

Here’s something: ask him to explain why Abraham calls Lot his “brother” (Genesis 13:8) when Lot is clearly Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:27). Ask him if the bible is false, because of that clear contradiction. Or, Abraham could have been lying. Or…

Or, could “brother” or “sister” mean someone from extended family or the same geographical area (yes, it did and still does in much of the non-Baptist world)?

 

[Godmachine]

In the ancient Hebrew culture, the “firstborn” son was consecrated to the Lord, out of every family (Exodus 13:2). Didn’t matter of there was one or 10. It was the firstborn, even if an only child, to which that honor was given. Made sense back then, but not so much now.

I did not grow up in ancient Hebrew culture. You may be right. I don’t know.

Here’s something: ask him to explain why Abraham calls Lot his “brother” (Genesis 13:8) when Lot is clearly Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:27). Ask him if the bible is false, because of that clear contradiction. Or, Abraham could have been lying. Or…

I already know his answer to that. He says where the Bible “appears” to contradict itself, one needs to apply “proper hermeneutics”. This is a convenient tool he uses (and apparently only he knows how to use) to explain the appearance of biblical contradictions. In other words, the Bible is not open to interpretation unless he says so. Of course he says that it is not him who says so but God who says so. I find it kinda suspicious that God seems to hold same beliefs, ideas and opinions that he does.

Or, could “brother” or “sister” mean someone from extended family or the same geographical area (yes, it did and still does in much of the non-Baptist world)?

I agree completely that those words could have many alternate meanings. But I’m not sure if proper hermeneutics have been applied there.

 

[Godmachine]

Indeed. The only folks I’m aware of that worshipped St. Mary were the adherents of Collyridianism–a heresy of the fourth century.

Interesting. I have never heard of Collyridianism before. You guys are a treasure trove of info.

 

[po18guy]

I did not grow up in ancient Hebrew culture. You may be right. I don’t know.

I already know his answer to that. He says where the Bible “appears” to contradict itself, one needs to apply “proper hermeneutics”. This is a convenient tool he uses (and apparently only he knows how to use) to explain the appearance of biblical contradictions. In other words, the Bible is not open to interpretation unless he says so. Of course he says that it is not him who says so but God who says so. I find it kinda suspicious that God seems to hold same beliefs, ideas and opinions that he does.

I agree completely that those words could have many alternate meanings. But I’m not sure if proper hermeneutics have been applied there.

Ask him where the “Sacred Table of Contents” of the bible came from. His answer will amuse. You cannot win any argument with him because you are arguing with his ego, which is by definition, perfect. A religious HAL9000, if you will.

 

[odhiambo]

In Uganda, Kenya and most of Africa I would imagine, cousins are referred to as “brothers”. It is not therefore strange to us that Jesus’ cousins were called His “brothers”

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

Here’s another one you could run by him that proves a family relationship cannot be established on the strength of exegesis of the text alone.

Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.”
2:49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”*