Siblings of Jesus?

[savedsinner]

I think that one must compare the angel appearing to Zechari’ah with the angel appearing to Mary.

Angel:
"Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.

Zechari’ah:
, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.”

Angel:
“I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”

:angel1:

Angel:
“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.”

Mary:
“How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

Angel:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

:angel1:

Now look at a few things.
Zechariah was punished for questioning the angel, but Mary was not punished for questioning the angel.

The angel told Mary that she would conceive Jesus, not that she was already pregnant.
Mary was espoused to Joseph already, so to me this would be a very odd question for her to respond to the angel.

The only thing that would make sense to me is if she had taken a vow of virginity.
I mean, didn’t Mary know that once she was married and had relations, she could then conceive Jesus?

Why was Mary not punished for her questioning the angel but Zechari’ah was punished?

Where is the bible does it say explicitly that the siblings of Jesus were born of Mary?

 

[jmcrae]

The previous scriptures have already answered your question. Read them again. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in your own interpretation of the scriptures I have provided you.

I’ve studied them all, and prayed over them all. The Holy Spirit is convicting me that the Catholic Church got it right.

“And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
John 8:32

It does. I have never been more free than since learning the Truth, and becoming Catholic. :angel1:

Do you want to place your trust in the the Word of God, or do you want to place your faith in man-made traditions of hell?

My trust is in the Word of God - that’s why I have no choice but to be a Catholic.

The man-made traditions of Hell are everything that works in opposition to the Catholic Church. You can tell, because they don’t actually have any doctrines of their own. They just say, “Anything but Catholic.”

 

[TobyLue]

(Edited) Catholics place their trust in the Church that Jesus founded. It was the Church that says the Bible **IS **the Word of God. and only She has the correct interpretation; not you, nor the many self-man-made religions. The Church has had the same interpretations since before the Bible was put together BY THE CHURCH with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught their disciples; their disciples taught their disciples, on down the line to the present time. Unfortunately you have been deceived by man-made traditions that sprung up some 500 years ago. Those, my friend are the real traditions of hell.
After all He did say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Not the Bible.
In no way am I saying that I don’t quite believe in the Bible, but if there is something not clear to me, then I have the Church to help me. That is why there is ONE Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, and thousands of non-denominational churches all doing their own interpretation and saying “Oh I read the Word of God, so I know better then the Church Jesus founded”. Unfortunately you belong to one of those thousands.
If you want to use the word “until” to mean what you say that Mary and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus’ birth, then you have to be consistent with that word. 1 Tim 13 “Until I come, be diligent in reading, in exhortation and in teaching.” Are you saying that after Paul arrived Timothy was to no longer read, exhort and teach?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If you want to use the word “until” to mean what you say that Mary and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus’ birth, then you have to be consistent with that word. 1 Tim 13 “Until I come, be diligent in reading, in exortation and in teaching.” Are you saying that after Paul arrived Timothy was to no longer read, exort and teach?

 

[grapnell]

Catholics place their trust in the Church that Jesus founded. It was the Church that says the Bible **IS **the Word of God. and only She has the correct interpretation; not you, nor the many self-man-made religions. The Church has had the same interpretations since before the Bible was put together BY THE CHURCH with the inspiriation of the HOly Spirit.
Jesus taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught their disciples; their disciples taught their disciples, on down the line to the present time. Unfortunately you have been deceived by man-made traditions that sprung up some 500 years ago. Those, my friend are the real traditions of hell.
After all He did say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Not the Bible.
In no way am I saying that I dont quite believe in the Bible, but if there is something not clear to me, then I have the Church to help me. That is why there is ONE Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, and thousands of non-denominational churches all doing their own interpretation and saying “Oh I read the Word of God, so I know better then the Church Jesus founded”. Unfortunately you belong to one of those thousands.
If you want to use the word “until” to mean what you say that Mary and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus’ birth, then you have to be consistent with that word. 1 Tim 13 “Until I come, be diligent in reading, in exortation and in teaching.” Are you saying that after Paul arrived Timothy was to no longer read, exort and teach?

The Catholic church claims to be the only true Church and the only way to heaven. Over a billion people in the world subscribe to this and thus believe that they are right.

“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257

but unfortunately, you are wrong, and once again, scripture says differently. Here the words of Jesus Christ Himself:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

FEW Does 1/3 of the world’s population constitute a few?

“Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:23-24

“The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;” Matthew 9:37

These are words straight from Jesus’ mouth. Once again, you can choose to believe the Word of God, straight from His mouth, or you can choose to follow the man-made traditions from hell, concocted by Satan himself to deceive mankind.

 

[jmcrae]

The Catholic church claims to be the only true Church and the only way to heaven. Over a billion people in the world subscribe to this and thus believe that they are right.

“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257

but unfortunately, you are wrong, and once again, scripture says differently. Here the words of Jesus Christ Himself:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

Here are some more words of Jesus:

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Sounds like Catholic Baptism, to me.

FEW Does 1/3 of the world’s population constitute a few?

He also said to evangelize the whole world;obviously He intends for all the world to practice His religion, right? But if you want to go by size, I think the world’s smallest religion is the B’Hai.

“Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:23-24

Two thirds of the world seems like “many”, to me.

“The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;” Matthew 9:37

Yep, we always need more priests.

These are words straight from Jesus’ mouth. Once again, you can choose to believe the Word of God, straight from His mouth, or you can choose to follow the man-made traditions from hell, concocted by Satan himself to deceive mankind.

Are you talking to yourself? Get out of the man-made religion of Protestantism, and believe the true teachings of God.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Temporarily closed for clean up of anti-Catholic & off topic posts.

Back soon.

 

[BrianH]

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.

The problem with this argument is that Mary had relatives; either nephews or step-children (if one does not believe other biological children) and yet Christ did not give her to their care either.
That would have been “insulting” as well.

 

[BrianH]

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.

The difficulty with this argument is it assumes no one in the passages can have the same first name. A early Chrisitan writer called Jude the brother of Jesus…humanly speaking. The Greek writers had a word for cousin. They did not use it.

 

[jmcrae]

The difficulty with this argument is it assumes no one in the passages can have the same first name. A early Chrisitan writer called Jude the brother of Jesus…humanly speaking. The Greek writers had a word for cousin. They did not use it.

Yes, but the Jude in question is the Apostle Jude, whom we know from elsewhere, was the brother of James, the son of Alphaeus (who is also called Cleopas). So, “brother” is being used in a different sense (as it often is in English) - he is a “brother” of Jesus in the sense that he is one of those who went around with Him during His earthly ministry. Not in the sense of being a blood relative of any kind.

 

[BrianH]

Yes, but the Jude in question is the Apostle Jude, whom we know from elsewhere, was the brother of James, the son of Alphaeus (who is also called Cleopas). So, “brother” is being used in a different sense (as it often is in English) - he is a “brother” of Jesus in the sense that he is one of those who went around with Him during His earthly ministry. Not in the sense of being a blood relative of any kind.

I believe him to be the half brother of Jesus. But regardless, let anyone read and see if he is a “brother” in a different sense as you say. They said he was a relative but I guess you think they were wrong too…

Eusebius:

"

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. “Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them;
and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.”
Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.
But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus

 

[jmcrae]

I believe him to be the half brother of Jesus. But regardless, let anyone read and see if he is a “brother” in a different sense as you say. They said he was a relative but I guess you think they were wrong too…

Eusebius:

"

There are some who say that Alphaeus was a brother or cousin to Joseph, which would definitely make him to have been thought to be blood kin to Jesus, and possibly even actually, if it is true that Mary was a cousin of Joseph’s.

 

[BrianH]

There are some who say that Alphaeus was a brother or cousin to Joseph, which would definitely make him to have been thought to be blood kin to Jesus, and possibly even actually, if it is true that Mary was a cousin of Joseph’s.

People can read the passage and decide. I side with the 2nd century historian.

 

[Truthstalker]

I haven’t heard a satisfactory Catholic explanation of Ps 69:8:

I am a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my own mother’s sons

which is immediately before

for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me (NIV)

The passage and context are clearly messianic, meaning it is in reference to Jesus. The Hebrew parallelism equates brothers with mother’s sons. According to the exegetical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, this supports the inference that “brother of Jesus” in the New Testament is to be taken at face value. The context seems to rule out the idea that one verse applies to Jesus and the previous does not.

I recognize that “brother” can be used in a wider sense than “son of the same parent” but this seems to rule it out.

Just my :twocents:.

 

[hays1122]

I haven’t heard a satisfactory Catholic explanation of Ps 69:8:

which is immediately before

The passage and context are clearly messianic, meaning it is in reference to Jesus. The Hebrew parallelism equates brothers with mother’s sons. According to the exegetical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, this supports the inference that “brother of Jesus” in the New Testament is to be taken at face value. The context seems to rule out the idea that one verse applies to Jesus and the previous does not.

I recognize that “brother” can be used in a wider sense than “son of the same parent” but this seems to rule it out.

Just my :twocents:.

As a protestant I was taught that Jesus did have brothers and sisters. Supported with the verses stated here.
Someone recently pointed out something that I hadn’t thought of before.
If Jesus did have siblings. Then why did Jesus tell John to take care of his mother. It seems that Mary would have been surrounded by her other children.
Any mother watching her son tortured and crucified would certainly have her children helping hold her up.
Offering support and comfort.
Not even one of Jesus’s siblings was there?
That does not make any sense.
So now I believe Jesus had no siblings.

 

[BrianH]

As a protestant I was taught that Jesus did have brothers and sisters. Supported with the verses stated here.
Someone recently pointed out something that I hadn’t thought of before.
If Jesus did have siblings. Then why did Jesus tell John to take care of his mother. It seems that Mary would have been surrounded by her other children.
Any mother watching her son tortured and crucified would certainly have her children helping hold her up.
Offering support and comfort.
Not even one of Jesus’s siblings was there?
That does not make any sense.
So now I believe Jesus had no siblings.

Either Jesus had half-brothers, step-brothers, or cousins. Those are the only possibilities. Mary traveled with these men.
Matthew 12:47.
None of these men were there at the time. But they existed and they were either his half-brothers, step-brothers, or cousins. They were close to him. Paul calls James his brother. They were not around and yet they existed.
Mary knew he was going to be crucified at what time? That morning? The night before? We do not know where any of these men were. We do not know if they knew what was going on.
How long did it take to get word? Where did they live? Did they forsake him like Peter? Where was the first Pope when his Lord was killed?
People chickened out. As far as having John take care of his mother, we know that she either had nephews, sons, or step-sons that she travelled with and none of them were selected despite the fact they were family. BH

 

[zach_dunn]

I was just thinking something, if any of you were the mom/dad of Jesus, would you even consider having other children at all? Having other children would take away from your time with Jesus and you wouldn’t be able to dedicate your entire life to him. I don’t think Mary would do that, or anyone that followed Jesus for that matter.

 

[claymcdermott]

Hi Truthstalker,
There are three ways a Catholic might look at that passage. The first is to look at the suffering of the psalmist as a prefigurement of the suffering of Christ. This means that it is prophetic, but can vary from the event it prefigures in specific details. For instance, Jesus does not have a near drowning experience as is suggested in Psalm 69, “Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me.” We also see that many prefigurements of Christ (the Passover Lamb, the Suffering Servant, King David) can vary slightly from Christ (Jesus was not a literal sheep).
The second way for a Catholic to look at it is that many Catholics are under the persuasion that Joseph had children from an earlier marriage, and Mary may have adopted them. So they would be His mother’s sons, and His brothers.
The third is that Mary is the mother of all mankind, so when the apostles( his “brothers”) did not stay by His side, His mother’s sons abandoned Him.

 

[BrianH]

I was just thinking something, if any of you were the mom/dad of Jesus, would you even consider having other children at all? Having other children would take away from your time with Jesus and you wouldn’t be able to dedicate your entire life to him. I don’t think Mary would do that, or anyone that followed Jesus for that matter.

That is one perspective. I do not think that having a family detracts from Jesus. That is probably a Catholic presupposition based upon thoughts concerning the celibacy of priests. Families do not draw us from Christ. I do not think of Mary as “following” him when he was a child. That would be new to me.

 

[RobbyS]

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

The Proto gospel of James tells us that James was the son of Joseph by a former marriage, but there are many hints of tension between Jesus and his kinfolks in the Gospels, that James was not reconciled until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection. It may also be that John the Evangelist was the
son of Mary’s sister Salome, so that would explainwhy (1) John was the “Beloved disciple,” and (2) what in the exteme circumstances of the crucifixion, Jesus would assign John to care for his mother. The personal closeness of James to Jesus is
suggested by Jame’s prominent position in the Church, where he is paired up with Peter, the first among the rwelve.

Of course. all of this is speculation, but it shows that what Protestants contend is the “obvious” interpretation is really not so obvious.

But why modern protestants so easily accept that Mary had other children after Jesus ithout thinking how this diminishes to virgin birth to a sign that is different in degree rather than in kind to the nativity of John the Baptist ? I think it is a reaction of the devotion paid to Mary by Catholics and a rejection of monasticism with its embracing of the single life. The ordinary Protestant has no knowledge of the controversies of the early Church about the divinity of Christ and why the title Theotokos was assigned to Mary by the Church, and why in both east and west she holds such an exaulted place inthe scheme of things.