Siblings of Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zach_dunn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zach_dunn

Guest
Ok, I know that the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that Jesus has brothers and sisters, and so do I. My girlfriend (non-Catholic) was taught that Jesus did indeed have brothers and sisters, is there scriptural proof that He didn’t? I also know that there are passages of the Bible that use brother (brethren) and sister, could someone explain this to me?
 
Scripture does not say he had “literal physical” brothers. 🙂

It is apparent if you compare Mt. 13:55 with Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25, you will see that James and Joseph are the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas. Despite that, they are still called Jesus’ “brothers” in Mat. 13:55. They are not his fraternal brothers. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/4.gif

Not even Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin taught that Jesus had siblings.

Here is a more detailed article which also gets into the Greek of the term for brethren:
 
It’s interesting how words change-- in the 19th century, ‘Mother in law’ was used as we’d use ‘step mother’ [and brother, sister, etc.].

But your spouse’s brother was called ‘brother’, not brother in law.

Point being that people who think they can take a translation of a translation of a 20 century old document as though the words mean exactly the same thing today as they did then are more than a little naive…
 
Remember, on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary into John’s care. Had He had siblings, that would have been the gravest insult. It is not likely that Jesus would have donr that to blood siblings.

Peace,
Linda
 
I don’t think they are biological siblings of Jesus; more like adoptive brothers or sisters (Joseph was said to have children from a previous marriage) or they were His cousins.

I hope that helps.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
Sam_Maloney said:
It’s interesting how words change-- in the 19th century, ‘Mother in law’ was used as we’d use ‘step mother’ [and brother, sister, etc.].

But your spouse’s brother was called ‘brother’, not brother in law.

Point being that people who think they can take a translation of a translation of a 20 century old document as though the words mean exactly the same thing today as they did then are more than a little naive…
Click to expand...
The Inuit are the same, even today. I have a sister-in-law (and of course her children, who are my nieces and nephews) who is Inuit, and as a result, I am “sister” and “mother” to people who are not even the same race as me.

I am sure all tribal cultures are similar - basically, if you are a “friend of the tribe” you are a sister/brother or mother/father to everyone in the whole tribe.
 
LindaS said:
Remember, on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary into John’s care. Had He had siblings, that would have been the gravest insult. It is not likely that Jesus would have donr that to blood siblings.

Peace,
Linda
Click to expand...
I so agree with your statement. If this topic ever comes up I will certainly point out this fact. Why would Jesus give Mary to John’s care if there were other family members, especially a brother near by. And surely if he had brothers and sisters they would have been by their mother’s side to give her comfort as her son and their sibling Jesus was being so brutally crucified.
 
hays1122 said:
I so agree with your statement. If this topic ever comes up I will certainly point out this fact. Why would Jesus give Mary to John’s care if there were other family members, especially a brother near by. And surely if he had brothers and sisters they would have been by their mother’s side to give her comfort as her son and their sibling Jesus was being so brutally crucified.
Click to expand...
Especially since a widow without a son would be in a very precarious position. Mideastern familes are much more extensive than ours. I wonder if the Arab practice of first cousins marrying was also practiced by the Jews of the time.
 
You are all trying to avoid the truth of what the Bible says. You are trying to invalidate God’s Word with man-made logic. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers, born to Mary.

**Matthew 13:55 **
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
**Matthew 13:56 **
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

So by saying that Jesus didn’t have siblings, this can mean one of two things. Either you are committing blasphemy, or you are saying that the Bible isn’t true.
 
grapnell said:
You are all trying to avoid the truth of what the Bible says. You are trying to invalidate God’s Word with man-made logic. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers, born to Mary.

**Matthew 13:55 **
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
**Matthew 13:56 **
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

So by saying that Jesus didn’t have siblings, this can mean one of two things. Either you are committing blasphemy, or you are saying that the Bible isn’t true.
Click to expand...
Still, the others have a good point. Why would Jesus give his mother to John when he died, if James and Joses and Juda were his brothers? I think perhaps they were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. Mary was a virgin you know.
 
1.) Again, your argument is invalid. Point to me a verse in the Bible that states that Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born, because I have just pointed verses to you that clearly prove she was not.
**
Matthew 1:24-25**, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (this means he did not have relations with her) TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name JESUS.

2.) And again, perhaps more importantly, how can you invalidate the Bible with man-made logic?
 
But to answer your question, Jesus brothers did not believe in him:

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
 
grapnell said:
1.) Again, your argument is invalid. Point to me a verse in the Bible that states that Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born, because I have just pointed verses to you that clearly prove she was not.
**
Matthew 1:24-25**, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (this means he did not have relations with her) TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name JESUS.

2.) And again, perhaps more importantly, how can you invalidate the Bible with man-made logic?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that James was older than Jesus. The first-born son. Therefore, step brother.
 
(Edited)

The most commonly held belief by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics alike is that James was the stepbrother of Jesus. The **Protevangelium of James **assumes the Greek nature of Jewish practices during this period in history and says that Mary was betrothed to an older relative in order to preserve her virginity (he could not have had sex with her, it would have been incest; that Joseph already had children - James was already a boy when Jesus was born. The **Protevangelium of James **is one of the earliest documents (150 AD) and although it was not included in scripture, its traditional testimony was accepted by the early church.

I can’t help it that you believe in the Bible alone! I’m Catholic!!
 
Even if you use the apocrypha as your source, it still claims that Mary had other children after Jesus.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
The most commonly held belief by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics alike is that James was the stepbrother of Jesus. The **Protevangelium of James **assumes the Greek nature of Jewish practices during this period in history and says that Mary was betrothed to an older relative in order to preserve her virginity (he could not have had sex with her, it would have been incest; that Joseph already had children - James was already a boy when Jesus was born. The **Protevangelium of James **is one of the earliest documents (150 AD) and although it was not included in scripture, its traditional testimony was accepted by the early church.

I can’t help it that you believe in the Bible alone! I’m Catholic!!
Click to expand...
So that brings me back to my earlier question that has been dodged. Are you claiming that God’s Word is false in:

Matthew 1:24-25, Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (this means he did not have relations with her) TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON: and he called his name JESUS.

(Edited)
 
grapnell said:
You are all trying to avoid the truth of what the Bible says. You are trying to invalidate God’s Word with man-made logic. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers, born to Mary.

**Matthew 13:55 **
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
**Matthew 13:56 **
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

So by saying that Jesus didn’t have siblings, this can mean one of two things. Either you are committing blasphemy, or you are saying that the Bible isn’t true.
Click to expand...
The father of James and Joses, the “brothers” of Jesus is Alphaeus; not Joseph. (Matthew 10:3) Their mother was also named Mary, but she was not Mary the mother of Jesus. (Matthew 27:56)

There is also another James, who is the son of Zebedee; his brother’s name is John. (Mark 10:35)

Jude is also a son of Mary and Alphaeus, and Simon’s lineage is not indicated; it only shows that he was a Zealot. Simon Peter is the son of a man named Jonah (Matthew 16:18) and Simon the Leper, Simon of Cyrene, and Simon the Magician are all too old to be Jesus’ younger sibling.)

So, the only possible sibling of Jesus is Simon the Zealot, but given than the other three are not actually siblings of Jesus, since they are sons of Alphaeus, it seems unlikely that Simon would be.
 
grapnell said:
You are all trying to avoid the truth of what the Bible says. You are trying to invalidate God’s Word with man-made logic. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers, born to Mary.

**Matthew 13:55 **
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
**Matthew 13:56 **
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

So by saying that Jesus didn’t have siblings, this can mean one of two things. Either you are committing blasphemy, or you are saying that the Bible isn’t true.
Click to expand...
The truth is, is that the bible never say’s that those other siblings were born of Mary.
The only one born of Mary whom is mentioned in the bible is Jesus.

Firstborn doesn’t mean that there are others born after that one.
Firstborn is a title for the first one born out of the womb. Instead of using your 21st century logic, you have to understand what firstborn meant for the 1st century Jews.
It is a honor or a title.
Just like God wanted the firstborn animals sacrificed at the temple. That doesn’t mean that there would have been other animals born to the mother, she could have died, but God wanted the first one out of the womb of the animal offered at the temple.

I suggest you get a book on the times and life of Jesus and the Jews to understand their culture so you don’t make such ignorant comments in the future and embarrass yourself.
 
Yeah? What about the apostles? What does that have to do with Jesus’ siblings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top