Siblings of Jesus?

[claymcdermott]

Hi BrianH,
No, of course having families does not draw us away from Christ, which is why we have never taught that it does. You’ll find that Catholics are quite committed to the Domestic Church. As for the negative vibes about celibacy, you probably know as well as I do that Saint Paul and Jesus both recommend celibacy as a way of life for people who want to follow Christ as His priests. You see, the Church has taught that there are different ways to follow Christ, and that celibacy is a good idea if you wish to follow Him as a priest. Fasting presupposes the goodness of food; celibacy presupposes the goodness of family
God Bless,
Clay

 

[BrianH]

Hi BrianH,
No, of course having families does not draw us away from Christ, which is why we have never taught that it does. You’ll find that Catholics are quite committed to the Domestic Church. As for the negative vibes about celibacy, you probably know as well as I do that Saint Paul and Jesus both recommend celibacy as a way of life for people who want to follow Christ as His priests. You see, the Church has taught that there are different ways to follow Christ, and that celibacy is a good idea if you wish to follow Him as a priest. Fasting presupposes the goodness of food; celibacy presupposes the goodness of family
God Bless,
Clay

Yes. I am commenting on a view that Mary having other children would have drawn her away from Christ. A rather odd proposition for a Catholic who contends Mary draws up TO Christ. I understand the celibacy, I was speculating about why they said that originally. I do not believe in New Testament priests obviously but yes it is an option. My feelings about the Roman rite mandating it is another topic.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Then think of Mary as the First Christian, the first believer. Even she might not have known exactly what his mission was, or how great a personage he was until he was glorified, so faith was required but one that never faltered.

 

[po18guy]

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.

Also, please visit www.biblechristiansociety.com This is John Martignoni’s site for Catholic apologetics. Click on 2 minute apologetics and scroll down to where he directly addresses this issue, which is a non-issue once you study the scripture.

 

[yellowbicycle]

When Joseph and Mary returned to the temple for Jesus, where were the other children?
And, not that this part is very Catholic or biblical, but I can tell you - as a deeply flawed sinner, and with nothing even close to the devoted heart of Mary, that if an ANGEL told me that I would have a child WITHOUT having known the touch of a man, you can bet your buttons that I would probably just stick with that, and keep on not knowing the touch of a man.
‘My first-born, he’s the Savior of the world. My other son, he’s a farmer.’ Seriously? I don’t think so.

 

[SeanTom]

MEANING OF “BROTHER”, or BREATHEREN, IN SCRIPTURE

The below is taken from my files of many years ago:

The term “brother” has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to brothers germane or half brothers. The same goes for “sister” and the plural “brethren”. Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi; Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren”, the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22)

The terms “brethren“, “brother“, and “sister“ did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant only a kinsman (Dt 23:8; Jer 34:9). The words could mean even people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (1 Kings 9:13, 20:12). Or just an ally (Amos 1:9).

Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, had a special word meaning “cousin“. Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother“ or a circumlocution, such as “the son of the sister of my father“. Using a circumlocution was clumsy way to speak, so they naturally fell to using the word “brother“. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brethren“ to mean both cousins and sons of the same father - plus other relatives and even non-relatives. To determine just what “brethren“ or “brother“ or “sister“ means in any one verse, we must look at the context. When we do that, we may see insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “the son of Mary“ (Mk 6:3), not as “a son of Mary“. If the words “a son of Mary“ were used, then that might infer that there were other sons, but the words were “THE son of Mary“. The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary‘s sons, not even when they are called Jesus‘ “brethren“. If they were in fact her sons, this would be a strange usage. I do find it strange that many of the persons named in the Bible are referred to as “______, the son or daughter of _______”. Other than Jesus, I can recall no reference to any of Jesus‘ alleged brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, or Judas as being referred to as “a son of Mary or Joseph“.

The other argument used by some concerns the term “first-born.” They say Jesus could not be called Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. This is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant that child who opened the womb (Ex 13:2, Nb3:12). Under the Mosaic law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex 34-20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Not hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her “first-born”. Does this mean that she had other children AFTER her death? Not hardly. The words “first born” does not necessarily mean that there were others. In Laws of Inheritance, the words “first son” was used quite often since the “first son” inherited his father’s estate. Even though there may be only one son, he was still referred to as the “first son”. “First son” was frequently used in biblical times.

Are we not all brothers and sisters of Christ??

As for me personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether Jesus had other bloodline brothers and sisters born of his Mother Mary after the virgin birth. My faith is not dependent on the historical value of the Bible. I base my faith on the “messages” that are conveyed to me through holy scripture. I ask the Holy Spirit to give me the knowledge to understand the message that Christ wants me to receive. I am very dedicated to my faith as it pertains to the moral, faith and salvation teachings of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the church in all areas, but that in no way effects my standing with my Christian beliefs. The Catholic Church is my foundation, and supports me in my quest to become a better Christian, while at the same time seeking entrance into God‘s Kingdom…

 

[BrianH]

there is a Greek word for cousin and it is used in the Bible. Just to give all the facts. It is not used in reference to the brothers of Jesus.

 

[dawid]

Each language has its shortcomings.
In Afrikaans, there is no word for nephew or niece.
It seems that in Hebrew or Aramaic there was no word for cousin, so the term brother or sibling was appropriate.

 

[po18guy]

there is a Greek word for cousin and it is used in the Bible. Just to give all the facts. It is not used in reference to the brothers of Jesus.

Already been done. As I recall, It’s not the same form of Greek that the scriptures were written in. So, why is it sooooo important to demean the Virgin Mary? To normalize her? To mold her into one of the many?

Doesn’t your bible tell you that she was “on a mission from God”? Name one other woman who was addressed directly by the Archangel Gabriel, at God’s command, to carry out a one-time in all history task - that of bearing God’s only Son in human flesh. This to you is just average? A normal girl?

After having borne God’s son, would you, as Mary, just set him aside and bow to carnal pleasures and have a big family? You are also assuming that the much older Joseph was still able, even if he had any desire for children. He was also warned by Angels in dreams about the child, and fled with the family to Egypt. You think he just lumped Jesus in with normal kids? Come on!!! How would that serve the Lord, Who expected them to carefully and lovingly raise His Son? That is not obedience. Mary and Joseph were always about obedience, from her “Yes” to Gabriel all the way through the flight to, and return from Egypt. We are all recommended to follow their example.

I, for one, will NOT sit in the judgment seat of Christ only to have to explain how average and unremarkable I thought His mother was. I am unfit to tie her apron sting. There is a sin of detraction, and it applies to Mary and Joseph as well. Amen.

 

[jmcrae]

When Joseph and Mary returned to the temple for Jesus, where were the other children?
And, not that this part is very Catholic or biblical, but I can tell you - as a deeply flawed sinner, and with nothing even close to the devoted heart of Mary, that if an ANGEL told me that I would have a child WITHOUT having known the touch of a man, you can bet your buttons that I would probably just stick with that, and keep on not knowing the touch of a man.
‘My first-born, he’s the Savior of the world. My other son, he’s a farmer.’ Seriously? I don’t think so.

There’s a really funny song by the Arrogant Worms called “Jesus’ Brother Bob” that uses humour to point out the same thing - can you imagine being the uterine sibling of Jesus? “Mom loves you more!!” “Well, yeah - I’m God!!” “WAAAAH!!” :crying: :crying: :crying:

 

[BrianH]

Already been done. As I recall, It’s not the same form of Greek that the scriptures were written in.

It is in scripture. Thats what I just said.

normalize her? To mold her into one of the many?

 

[jmcrae]

Much older Joseph?
I think having brothers and sisters would be a good thing.

Would it have been good for the brothers and sisters, though? Imagine being in competition with God Himself. You’d be losing before you even tried.

 

[BrianH]

Would it have been good for the brothers and sisters, though? Imagine being in competition with God Himself. You’d be losing before you even tried.

Yes. If it was good for others to be around Christ, why not siblings. It might even inspire one of them to be considered one of the most humble and pious men ever; James.
But, back to your premise. I do not really know what you mean by competition? I have three brothers and I am not in competition with them

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes. If it was good for others to be around Christ, why not siblings. It might even inspire one of them to be considered one of the most humble and pious men ever; James.
But, back to your premise. I do not really know what you mean by competition? I have three brothers and I am not in competition with them

Are your brothers God?

 

[BrianH]

Are your brothers God?

No. But the reasoning is lame IMHO

 

[zach_dunn]

So the reasoning that God deserves more attention and love than anyone else is lame?

 

[ferdie]

So the reasoning that God deserves more attention and love than anyone else is lame?

 

[BrianH]

So the reasoning that God deserves more attention and love than anyone else is lame?

Well there are several reasons to suggest that the Lord did not have brothers. Saying that it would result in competetion among his brothers is a new one. I do not think having additional children means you love the other ones less. I do not think having additional children means that she somehow could not provide Christ the attention he needed. He did quite well for himself and I do not think it could have been any other way. He was sinless with or without the undivided attention of his mother. I do not think that it would hurt his siblings, his step brothers, or cousins to have him around.
So absolutely, having discussed, debated, listened to reasonable Catholic apologists on hundreds of topics, this contention is I believe…yes it is…the lamest one I have read on this board or heard. IMO

 

[zach_dunn]

Here’s a better reason:

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

IMO

 

[BrianH]

Here’s a better reason:

IMO

This breaks down on point two and three. James was an apostle. Agreed. But this logic seems to indicate that only the twelve were apostles when clearly that is not the case. People outside of the twelve are called apostles. That is a known biblical fact that for some reason this poster ignores.
James the brother of the Lord did not have to be one of the twelve and you will not find an early Christian writer to support this. In fact, they disagree with it.
The same people who claim both scripture and tradition ignore that this cousin theory is much later.

This theory was first advanced by Jerome in 383, in a youthful polemic tract against Helvidius, without any traditional support

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.IV_1.27.html

But this theory you posted really falls apart because Eusebius quotes Heggesippus who writes this around the year 150 AD:

control of the church passed to the apostles , together with the Lord’s brother James