J
jspencer
Guest
I had a protestant brother tell me that this verse shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I didn’t know how to respond. I need help with this one. I looked it up in the Greek, and i’m more confused than ever.
- Status
J
jspencer
Guest
If you don’t want to post an answer to this, at least tell me where I can find the answers.
Thanks
Thanks
A
Abu
Guest
Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, had a special word meaning cousin, so the word for brother was used. The Gospels speak of four “brethren”, James, Joseph, Simon and Jude.
Jesus would hardly have left His Mother to His apostle John, if the above four were also her sons.
Even Renan, the French rationalist, wrote that appellations such as “the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3) “are employed only when the father is no longer alive and the widow has no other son.”
Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, MSC., STD., Chevalier Books, 1975, # 365].
Jesus would hardly have left His Mother to His apostle John, if the above four were also her sons.
Even Renan, the French rationalist, wrote that appellations such as “the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3) “are employed only when the father is no longer alive and the widow has no other son.”
Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, MSC., STD., Chevalier Books, 1975, # 365].
N
NotWorthy
Guest
If you notice throughout all the Gospels, you’ll never see Mary referred to as, “Mary, the Mother of Jesus AND …”. Mary is only referred to as the “Mother of Jesus”.
G
glen_Nolan
Guest
Hello, name is mark, I would like to aswer the question Jesus did have brothers or half brothers, the truth is they rejected him in the begining behe cause they didn’t know he was our saviour. When the Holy spirit opened their eyes to the truth after the resurection, they all got Converted or bornagain. You cannot see the truth unless the Holy spirit shows you.
Ask the Lord to save you from your sin,and He will, then get baptised and you will be saved. referance Mark 16. John 3.you cannot see unless yoyu are born from above.
I was a catholic for years, untill the Holy spirit told me I was heading for Hell, unless I repented, and turned from sin, Now I now I am saved, Halalu Yah. who is Yah Jesus name is Yah-oshua in Aramaic. translated God Himself saves.
the Catholic church as never saved anyone. My friend Jesus loves you, but hates your sin.REPENT TO JESUS. and you will be SAVED. Love in Christ Mark
The catholic church as hidden the fact Jesus had brothers, The Greek word means brothers. email me rainbowprint@live.co.uk
the catholics teach cousins read Galations 1 :19 Acts 1 :14 Mathew 13 :56
A
Abu
Guest
Pay no attention to the misled like glen Nolan.
You have the truth now, already.
God bless
You have the truth now, already.
God bless
N
NHInsider
Guest
This subject gets rehashed in this forum about once a month - OP is new and has just missed a long, not always polite thread on the subject!
Facts - by which I mean items that are not academically disputable, despite the inclination of some to dispute them.
**Fact **- the word adelphos does not mean “children of the same parents” exclusively. Many examples.
**Fact **- the number of “brothers and sisters” named or mentioned in the Gospels would have been difficult if not impossible for Mary to have borne - and probably would have been mentioned in the story of the Finding in the Temple.
Fact - most of the names of Jesus’ “brothers” are also associated with other, named parents. We know that there were more than a half-dozen men’s names in common use, how likely is it that all these different families named their sons the same names and in the same order?
**Fact **- legally, other sons or daughters of Mary would have been responsible for her at the death of her firstborn, regardless of whether they believed in His divinity - the fact that Jesus directed John to consider her as his mother, and that she lived with John for the rest of her life, is very strong evidence that she had no other children.
Fact - historically, there is no evidence in the early centuries of the faith of anyone having been regarded as having been a descendant of Mary.
Fact - the early Reformers, including the famed author of “sola scriptura” rejected vehemently any assertion that Mary did not remain a virgin.
Now some further points of Faith - by which I don’t mean “not fact” but that these are points that make sense to Catholics but which are rejected by those who are convinced that Mary did not remain a virgin.
**Faith **- After being told that Mary’s child was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Joseph would have considered Mary “already married” and so would not have engaged in marital relations with her. He might have even recalled what happened to those who touched the Ark and understood that what she held within her was similarly holy.
**Faith **- Mary had been dedicated as a Temple Virgin and/or had taken a vow of virginity and had been betrothed to Joseph with his understanding that he was her legal protector - and maybe he was already an older widower and that’s why he agreed (as evidenced by her response to the angel - if she had been planning on consummating her marriage, why would she have wondered how she would conceive? The angel doesn’t actually say anything about when she is to conceive.)
Faith - there are numerous Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, that can be interpreted as prophecies of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
And finally, speculation - this is just my thought -
Mary and Joseph had been charged with raising the Messiah. Simeon told them flat out that Mary would suffer for the child. Might they not have agreed that they needed to dedicate themselves to this Child and not either risk Mary’s dying in childbirth or subject other children to whatever uncertain future they faced?
Facts - by which I mean items that are not academically disputable, despite the inclination of some to dispute them.
**Fact **- the word adelphos does not mean “children of the same parents” exclusively. Many examples.
**Fact **- the number of “brothers and sisters” named or mentioned in the Gospels would have been difficult if not impossible for Mary to have borne - and probably would have been mentioned in the story of the Finding in the Temple.
Fact - most of the names of Jesus’ “brothers” are also associated with other, named parents. We know that there were more than a half-dozen men’s names in common use, how likely is it that all these different families named their sons the same names and in the same order?
**Fact **- legally, other sons or daughters of Mary would have been responsible for her at the death of her firstborn, regardless of whether they believed in His divinity - the fact that Jesus directed John to consider her as his mother, and that she lived with John for the rest of her life, is very strong evidence that she had no other children.
Fact - historically, there is no evidence in the early centuries of the faith of anyone having been regarded as having been a descendant of Mary.
Fact - the early Reformers, including the famed author of “sola scriptura” rejected vehemently any assertion that Mary did not remain a virgin.
Now some further points of Faith - by which I don’t mean “not fact” but that these are points that make sense to Catholics but which are rejected by those who are convinced that Mary did not remain a virgin.
**Faith **- After being told that Mary’s child was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Joseph would have considered Mary “already married” and so would not have engaged in marital relations with her. He might have even recalled what happened to those who touched the Ark and understood that what she held within her was similarly holy.
**Faith **- Mary had been dedicated as a Temple Virgin and/or had taken a vow of virginity and had been betrothed to Joseph with his understanding that he was her legal protector - and maybe he was already an older widower and that’s why he agreed (as evidenced by her response to the angel - if she had been planning on consummating her marriage, why would she have wondered how she would conceive? The angel doesn’t actually say anything about when she is to conceive.)
Faith - there are numerous Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, that can be interpreted as prophecies of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
And finally, speculation - this is just my thought -
Mary and Joseph had been charged with raising the Messiah. Simeon told them flat out that Mary would suffer for the child. Might they not have agreed that they needed to dedicate themselves to this Child and not either risk Mary’s dying in childbirth or subject other children to whatever uncertain future they faced?
M
Mark77
Guest
Glen,
God Bless you & i’m so glad to hear that you’re sure you’re saved!
**i agree that the Holy Spirit speaks to us, but what happens when you have 2 devout Christians who both believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them, yet they disagree 100% on a critical teaching?
We Catholics believe, based on Sacred Scripture, that Jesus founded the Catholic Church with Peter & his successors as Pope to answer important Spiritual questions like these!**
**If Jesus had not given us His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church, all sorts of false teachings, like the false teaching that Mary had numerous other children, would be believed by uninformed & gullible yet well meaning people like yourself!
**
**Fortunately, Jesus left us His Catholic Church to guide us; “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18 KJV)
**
Jesus also taught us; “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (MT 7:15 KJV)
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
H
hellopeople
Guest
I am a religious studies major right now and I have had two Biblical scholars (one of them being internationally known) tell me that Jesus had siblings without a doubt. These scholars are not Catholic, but I am quite sure that Catholics (or people that have theological ties to the view) are the only ones saying that Jesus did not have siblings.
Take that as you will though.
EDIT: Can anyone find a secular scholar, or a scholar from another faith that does not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine, that supports the claim that Jesus did not have siblings?
Take that as you will though.
EDIT: Can anyone find a secular scholar, or a scholar from another faith that does not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine, that supports the claim that Jesus did not have siblings?
N
NHInsider
Guest
You mean besides Luther and Calvin? Or the Islamic scholars who also defend Mary’s chastity?
What modern evidence would prove that Jesus did have siblings? How would it be more valid than the supposed evidence that He had children?
Ask yourself a different question. Why is it so important to prove that Jesus had siblings? Only to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Why would that be important to anyone? Only to support their pre-existing biases. So how reliable is the assertion of that scholar?
T
thistle
Guest
It always makes me smile hearing Protestants saying Mary had other children. The founders of Protestantism all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and declared so in writing. I already posted this in another thread.
Luther:
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Calvin:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Zwingli:
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Bullinger:
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
And much later John Wesley (founder of Methodism):
“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”
H
hellopeople
Guest
lol, I don’t think that either of these professors had any bias against the Catholic church. They didn’t even mention that the church thought of it differently. I was merely asking one of them who wrote the book of James, and he said that it could have been Jesus’ brother James, but we are not sure. He then went on to say that Jesus’ brother James was not a believer until after Jesus’ death. He said this in passing with absolutely no intention to disprove the church and only said it in response to a question I asked him. He is actually known for a very lutheran interpretation of scripture, so it is interesting if Luther believe Mary was perpetually a virgin. Are there any modern scholars you can quote that are outside of the church that believe Mary was a perpetual virgin.
And I think it is silly to assume that anyone that says Jesus had siblings is looking to prove the Catholic Church wrong…maybe they are just looking for the truth and don’t really care what the Catholic Church has to say about the issue (because they don’t take it as authoritative.)
P
praise_Jesus_1
Guest
I am exaggerating a little bit here, but his request is almost like asking if there are any scholars who are NOT atheists but believe there is no god.
And I’m curious as to what makes a modern scholar’s belief more important than say any of the Early Church Fathers who were also scholars, who argued for mary’s perpetual virginity (St. John Chrysostom comes to mind).
N
NHInsider
Guest
I don’t think anyone else would care, frankly.
I am reminded of all the excitement over the discovery of the ossuary that supposedly proved that James was the “brother of Jesus.” Lots of coverage, lots of blather on the history channel, lots of trumpeting from various evangelical rooftops - until it turned out to be a hoax.
I don’t imagine your professor is necessarily personally anti-catholic. I’m sure he is just telling you what he was taught. If he is in fact doing original scholarship with some previously unknown primary source material, that would be really exciting. . . .
C
choy
Guest
there’s two schools of thought on what the brothers and sisters of Jesus really are
but since they’re protestants, they should believe everything in the bible, right? ask them again where in the bible did it say they were Mary’s children?
H
hellopeople
Guest
I think that our our historical deduction techniques are much greater now then they were centuries ago…in fact, these techniques are much better than they were just 30 or 40 years ago. Augustine argued that Matthew was the first gospel to be written while most scholars today would disagree with this. The evidence seems to suggest that Mark was the earliest gospel, but Augustine did not have the knowledge or resources to critically analyze the works and evidence as we do now.
And, my request is not like the example you gave. If something is true, then secular scholars as well as Protestant scholars and scholars of other faiths should agree with the church. Especially when the evidence on both sides of the argument are found in the gospel. When only people that have a theological interest in something interpret passages a certain way, and the great majority of the other scholars without this theological interest view it in another way, I am going to have to side with the scholars that do not have a theological interest in the subject. Do you know what I mean? I have heard that some sects of Christianity claim that when Jesus turned water into wine, it was not actually wine but grape juice. They believe this because of their theology, not because of what the text says. It is reasonably apparent when reading the text that Jesus had siblings. Paul even calls James the brother of Christ.
C
choy
Guest
whether they are siblings or cousins, where in the bible did it say they were children of Mary? you should ask the scholars that
N
NHInsider
Guest
Paul calls Timothy his son, too. And Philemon his brother. And so on, and so on.
Why does it mean so much to you, I wonder? You don’t believe it in Mary’s perpetual virginity? So don’t believe. You’re not a catholic, it doesn’t really matter. But you’ve put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince us otherwise. Why?
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think that Mary’s propetual virginity is the constant teaching of the Church, Apistolic in nature. I think this question has been answered repeatedly by most (actually, almost certinaly all of) the orthodox fathers. I would suggest there for, that the arguments being brought forth against this doctrine are in fact, niether revolutionary, nor new but in fact have already been addressed.
St. Jerome:
St. Jerome:
And attached is Jeromes full defence of the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.
N
Nicea325
Guest
The early reformers(Luther,Calvin,Zwingli,etc) held to the ancient belief Mary remained a virgin.
- Status