Question / observation Re: Jesus having brothers

[JRKH]

Genealogy is something very important in the Bible. From the OT “Begets” to the Genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew…
This being the case, wouldn’t be likely that the writer of Matthew would have mentioned any siblings of Jesus - especially male siblings?
Or wouldn’t it have been a reasonable and common practice for Matthew to say, “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:25) - and follow this with, “and Mary bore (x) sons…”

Not seeking an argument - just asking the question. It seem like in the OT such things were recorded…

Peace
James

 

[hawkeye125646]

The actual term “Brothers” in the aramaic tongue was also used for cousins… During that time, Jewsih families were together and all the kids were called Brothers and Sisters… These verses, will help you, in seeing that Mary was a perpetual virigin!

Ezek. 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it [was] shut. 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 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.

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

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. . it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

 

[loko]

Westerners tend to interpret the Bible through their lenses.

The Middle East is not an anglo-west area and the families are extended not nuclear as they predominantly are in the West.

Even today Asian, Italian, Middle-Eastern and Islander families consider their first cousins as their ‘brother’ or ‘sister’. During the time of Christ, it was normal to have several families from the one family living under one roof.

I come from an immigrant family where my aunt will introduce me as her daughter or my mum will introduce my male first cousin as her son. My niece will respectfully refer to me as ‘small mummy’ because I am the younger sister of her mother, if I was an older sister I would be called ‘big mummy’. This is a given in our culture, it is tradition which is hundreds of years old.

I myself consider my first cousins as my sisters and brothers.

There was a similar viewpoint in Jewish families during Christs time.

 

[ahs]

…
Or wouldn’t it have been a reasonable and common practice for Matthew to say, “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:25) - and follow this with, “and Mary bore (x) sons…”

To focus on this point a bit…“until” or “till” doesn’t carry the meaning in Scripture that such act took place after such and such event. Karl Keating hits on this topic thoroughly and I’ll copy a bit form his book…

…“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” (2Sam 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?..The [raven] “went forth and did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth” (Gen 8:7). In fact, we know the raven never returned at all. Then there is the burial of Moses. About the location of his grave it was said that no man knows “until this present day” (Dt 34:6) - but we know that no one has known since that day either…
(Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p.285)