SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rich494
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Algo1 said:
The N.T actually does use the terms sungenis (cousin or close relative)
Code: 
And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
(Luke 1:36 ESV)
Code: 
as he spoke to our fathers,
	to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
(Luke 1:55 ESV)
Code: 
but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
(Luke 2:44 ESV)
Code: 
You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.
(Luke 21:16 ESV)
and anepsios (cousin):

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him),
(Colossians 4:10 ESV)

LINK

Rather than suntrophos (one raised as a foster brother):
Code: 
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1 ESV)
Or adelphos (brother):
Code: 
Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
(Matthew 1:2 ESV)

For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife,
(Matthew 14:3 ESV)

LINK
Click to expand...
But that is not the point. The question to be answered envolves the use of the Greek word adelphos-oi in scripture. Does this word have a strict meaning or a general meaning. Does it mean sibling brother or can it convey relationships other than that of siblings. The evidence from scripture is that adelphos/ adelphoi are used in a variety of ways and do not mean a sibling brother. Therefore to insist on that one interpretation is bad exogesis and leads to bad theology. Examples of scripture where brother adelphos/adelphoi are used and cannot mean sibling brothers include Lu 22:32 where Christ calls all of the apostles Peter’s brothers. Of course only Andrew was his sibling brother. Ga 1:19 where Paul calls one of the two apostles named James the Lord’s brother. Neither were as each of their fathers, Zebedee and Alpheus, are mentioned in Mt 10:1-2. There are other examples but I thkink you get the point. And that point is that if you see the word brother in a translation and it is the word adelpos/adelphoi you cannot assume that it is to be interpreted strictly as meaning a sibling brother.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
People still use this argument? Really? I did your research for you, enjoy.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Click to expand...
Would Jesus have the rights of “Firstborn” if Joseph had other sons from a previous marriage?
 
Algo1 said:
Another possibility is that John is describing 4 women at the Cross:

John 19:25 ____________________Matthew 27:56______________________Mark 15:40

1.Mary Magdalene ______________= Mary Magdalene _____________________=Mary Magdalene

2.Jesus’ Mother = Mary the Mother of_=Mary the Mother of
_______________________________James and Joseph ___________________James the younger and Joses

3.Jesus’ mother’s sister = Mother of Zebedee’s sons___= Salome

4.Mary wife of Clopas _______________________? ____________________________?
Click to expand...
This is another “possibility”: 8 women named Mary:
  1. Mary the mother of Jesus
  2. Mary Magdalene
  3. Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
  4. The other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1)
  5. Mary the mother of James “THE LESS” and of Joses (Mark 15:40) (James “THE LESS” is not the James of Matthew 27:56)
  6. Mary the mother of Joses (Mark 15:47) - (another Mary with a single son, Joses)
  7. Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) (another Mary, another James who has a sister named Salome)
  8. Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25)
Possibilities are endless. The fact is that Mary wife of Clopas is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary, not Salome. Salome is the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James the Great and John. If as you say, Salome is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary, why aren’t her sons identified as members of Jesus’ family as Elizabeth is in Luke’s gospel? You are saying James the Great and John are Jesus cousins, why are they not called “BROTHERS” of Jesus too?

This is a fact (not a possibility): FIRST MENTION is important in the Bible, it was important in Jesus times. When there are several people mentioned, the person of greater importance is named first. When the Virgin Mary is named (very few times with other people) she is mentioned first:

John 19:25, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus HIS MOTHER, and his mother’s sister”
Acts 1:14, “… With them were some women and also Mary, the mother of Jesus”

The Holy Spirit even INSPIRES John to mention Mary before Jesus! The “handmaid of the Lord” mentioned before “the Lord”!

John 2:1-2, “Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee and THE MOTHER OF JESUS was there. JESUS was also invited to the wedding with his disciples.”

But when “Mary the mother of James & Joses” is mentioned, Mary Magdalene is always mentioned ahead of her:

Matthew 27:56, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES”
Matthew 27:61, “And there was Mary Magdalene, AND THE OTHER MARY”
Matthew 28:1, “… Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY went to visit the tomb.”
Mark 15:40, “… among whom was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES THE LESS AND OF JOSES”
Mark 15:47, “And Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSES beheld where he was laid.”
Mark 16:1, “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES”
Luke 24:10, “It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES”

How do you explain the Mother of you Savior taking a back seat to Mary Magdalene and Joanna, knowing what you now know about FIRST MENTION?

Do you have any writing from a reliable protestant from the early church that can clarify what we are discussing? You know, someone who left a book, a letter, a paragraph, a sentence, explaining all of these “Mary’s” to his protestant congregation? How about a protestant writing of the first, second, third, fourth or fifth century?

The truth is that there are THREE and only THREE Mary at the cross. The truth is that there are TWO and only TWO James in the NT.
 
Prieldedi said:
This is another “possibility”: 8 women named Mary:
  1. Mary the mother of Jesus
  2. Mary Magdalene
  3. Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
  4. The other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1)
  5. Mary the mother of James “THE LESS” and of Joses (Mark 15:40) (James “THE LESS” is not the James of Matthew 27:56)
  6. Mary the mother of Joses (Mark 15:47) - (another Mary with a single son, Joses)
  7. Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) (another Mary, another James who has a sister named Salome)
  8. Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25)
Possibilities are endless. The fact is that Mary wife of Clopas is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary, not Salome. Salome is the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James the Great and John. If as you say, Salome is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary, why aren’t her sons identified as members of Jesus’ family as Elizabeth is in Luke’s gospel? You are saying James the Great and John are Jesus cousins, why are they not called “BROTHERS” of Jesus too?

This is a fact (not a possibility): FIRST MENTION is important in the Bible, it was important in Jesus times. When there are several people mentioned, the person of greater importance is named first. When the Virgin Mary is named (very few times with other people) she is mentioned first:

John 19:25, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus HIS MOTHER, and his mother’s sister”
Acts 1:14, “… With them were some women and also Mary, the mother of Jesus”

The Holy Spirit even INSPIRES John to mention Mary before Jesus! The “handmaid of the Lord” mentioned before “the Lord”!

John 2:1-2, “Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee and THE MOTHER OF JESUS was there. JESUS was also invited to the wedding with his disciples.”

But when “Mary the mother of James & Joses” is mentioned, Mary Magdalene is always mentioned ahead of her:

Matthew 27:56, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES”
Matthew 27:61, “And there was Mary Magdalene, AND THE OTHER MARY”
Matthew 28:1, “… Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY went to visit the tomb.”
Mark 15:40, “… among whom was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES THE LESS AND OF JOSES”
Mark 15:47, “And Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSES beheld where he was laid.”
Mark 16:1, “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES”
Luke 24:10, “It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES”

How do you explain the Mother of you Savior taking a back seat to Mary Magdalene and Joanna, knowing what you now know about FIRST MENTION?

Do you have any writing from a reliable protestant from the early church that can clarify what we are discussing? You know, someone who left a book, a letter, a paragraph, a sentence, explaining all of these “Mary’s” to his protestant congregation? How about a protestant writing of the first, second, third, fourth or fifth century?

The truth is that there are THREE and only THREE Mary at the cross. The truth is that there are TWO and only TWO James in the NT.
Click to expand...
You forgot at least one other possibility. That being that Clopas and Alpheus are the same individual with Clopas being the Aramaic name and Alpheus being the Greek name, sort of like Saul and Paul are one and the same. It was not uncommon in the first century to have a Greek name as well as an Aramaic especially since the universal language was Greek. This Clopas/Alpheus is the brother of Joseph who was married to a woman named Mary. That would make her the sister-in-law of Mary, Mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph, but again because of no word to correspond to our term, sister-in-law she is referred to as “His [Jesus’] mother’s sister” Very unlikely that parents in Judea in the about the first century BC or AD would have two daughters and give them the same name.
 
We see the linguistic and logical extremes that many subject themselves to for the sole purpose of not having to believe the teaching of the Catholic Church. They have gone so far as to shred several books of scripture in pursuit of this end. Once you are off the path, the possibilities are wide open.

What’s next, throwing the rest of the bible away and starting over from scratch?
 
Prieldedi said:
I don’t get it when you talk about “a years-old document and a statement by the Blessed Virgin Mary quoted on such document respectivly statement by Mary quoted by the person who wrote on such document”. What document? What statement? What quote?

The Sanhedrin denied Jesus was the messiah by saying that St. Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. That’s what they mean with born “through fornication”.

As for the second part of your comments, what has rape to do with what we are discussing?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say that per se in the quoted Chapter 2:7 though, albeit if the issue is about who the biological father is then it is either about messiahhood derived from biological father or derived from birth by a biologically virgin (which is technically possible though not desirable and such for male and/or female to intentionally do or do so by neglect, nor in case of non-virgin similarly), and if the issue is about “through fornication” as pre-martial sex, then “messiah can’t be conceived outside marriage” (perhaps derived from interpretation of religious law that if there is a child there should be marriage) seems as being a statement regarding everyone, with an (extended) reference of messiah to child and of society, even though conception only in marriage is kind of an ideal it is not realistic naturally with male and female both consenting, respectivly both wanting to have sex together (without “wanting” to live together).

Nevertheless, of fornication other translations and interpretations are (e.g.): “pre- or extra-martial sex, done in the archway, prostitution, sexual immorality, incest, bestiality, homosexuality”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication

Rape (in particular here, non-consensual and enforced sex) is, in my opinion, a sub-set of fornication, albeit it may not have been considered by the Sanhedrin as such overally or in particular.
 
In 1999 Gerry Matatics debated Eric Svendsen on this topic. It was in fact an excellent debate.

Audio Link

Also, Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron interviewed Eric Svendsen regarding this topic and mentioned that he had contacted C.A to invite Tim Staples to debate this topic with James White in the 11th Great Debate on Long Island.
 
He did NOT HAVE BROTHERS OR SISTERS! They would have been required by Jewish Traditions to taken care of Mary when Jesus died! He gave the care of HIS MOTHER over to JOHN, who was the SON OF ZEBEDEE…

Please read what Mary says when the Angel visits her in Luke chapter 1. She said “how can this be since I do not know man?” She did not know how a FUTURE conception would take place if she had no intention of having sexual relations.
 
po18guy said:
You are using the bible that Martin Luther edited for you. Yet, you do not believe as Luther did. Do you declare Luther to be wrong?
Click to expand...
I read the same verses in 4 Catholic Bibles. 3 out of 4 were essentially verbatim to all the ‘Protestant’ Bibles I have in my house. How does it read in your Bible?
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
And the NT proves the “brothers” and the “sister” of Christ are from other mothers thus proving from scripture alone that Blessed Mary remained a virgin. What’s the point in bringing this up about cousins?
Click to expand...
Several posts refer to the “Brothers of The Lord” as cousins. Please see the following:

#22

#27

#38

#57
 
jediliz said:
If jesus had brothers (who would have been HALF SIBLINGS) then why did THEY not care for Mary after Jesus’ death on the Cross? Why did Jesus give the care of HIS MOTHER over to John, the Beloved Disciple?
Click to expand...
Here’s a possible explanation. Jesus’ own family did not believe that He was a prophet, much less the Messiah. (Mark 6:4 - Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”) His own family had rejected Him.

Jesus’ family lived in Nazareth but only Mary His mother is named as being present at His crucifixion outside of Jerusalem. At this time, since no brothers believed nor were present, and Mary, being away from home and needing care and a place to stay, was assigned by Jesus to be cared for by John.

Mary remained in Jerusalem with John and the disciples at least until Pentecost. She is mentioned as being present in the upper room with them after Jesus’ resurrection. Interestingly, Jesus’ brothers are listed as being in attendance there also. Perhaps, the resurrection convinced them as to who Jesus really was.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
People still use this argument? Really? I did your research for you, enjoy.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Click to expand...
Trevor, thank you for the research. Of course, I have a few problems with it. First, re: “firstborn.” Your research obfuscates the issue by mixing the general and the specific. In the general case of large populations, such as Egypt during the killing plague or Israel during the census, the focus was on the “first one” regardless of there being any later-born siblings. In those large populations treated as a whole, we do not know, nor do we need to know if any individuals had additional children. However, in specific instances, such as with Esau, the meaning of the word “firstborn” is quite specific in saying that there was another sibling. You apparently have chosen the ‘general’ case as your preferred understanding of “firstborn.”

Re: the usage of “til” or “until,” again I see obfuscation. So, using your research conclusions, please tell what these sentences mean: 1. The student told his parents, “I will not be home till exams are over.” Will the student be forever taking exams? Will he never go home? 2. The doctor told the new father to have no union with his wife till six weeks had passed. Did the new father understand that to mean ‘never again?’

Judging from the conclusions of your research, Matthew 1:25 should have been written: “And he (Joseph) never knew her (Mary) even after she brought forth her one and only child.”

Matthew certainly was skilled enough in language usage to write v. 25 exactly as he intended with no difficult, hidden meanings imbedded within it. We can either accept Matthew’s ordinary, commonsense usage or we can ‘interpret’ it into something entirely different.

One additional point to ponder: How could Matthew possibly have known whether or not Joseph had union with Mary after the birth of Jesus? Two ways: either Mary told him or he saw the results in the later-born siblings of Jesus.

To me personally, it matters little whether Jesus had siblings. Nothing changes the fact that He is the Only Begotten Son of God born of a virgin. It’s all about Him!

Now let the stone throwing begin!
 
Pure_and_Simple said:
I read the same verses in 4 Catholic Bibles. 3 out of 4 were essentially verbatim to all the ‘Protestant’ Bibles I have in my house. How does it read in your Bible?
Click to expand...
Read* in context*, and as part of the deposit of faith, it provides a clear picture. If one wants to violate 2 Peter 1:20 and make faith a D.I.Y. project, one can make the bible support anything.
 
Pure_and_Simple said:
To me personally, it matters little whether Jesus had siblings. Nothing changes the fact that He is the Only Begotten Son of God born of a virgin. It’s all about Him! Now let the stone throwing begin!
Click to expand...
Does it bother you that no one on earth held this belief UNTIL recently?

If it does not matter, why do you default to the anti-Catholic, Anti-Orthodox, anti-Anglican, anti-Calvin, anti-Luther position? Something to think about.
 
ok I would like to aid a little to this discussion. Actually I would like to ask a question. By Jewish law, children were to take care of their mother so Jesus giving Mary to John in my opinion proves Jesus had not siblings but I want to think a little further on this theme. I would like to know where in Jewish law or the interpetation of Jewish Law that states this if anyone knows? Here is my reasoning; If Jesus gave Mary to John and Jesus had other siblings the Jesus would have been sinning to do so (or st least causing a sibling to sin which he also could not do) and since we know Jesus was sinless then it was not possible for him to have siblings. Thoughts? Anyone know of Jewish reference to prove this? am I right in my thinking?
 
Pure_and_Simple said:
Trevor, thank you for the research. Of course, I have a few problems with it. First, re: “firstborn.” Your research obfuscates the issue by mixing the general and the specific. In the general case of large populations, such as Egypt during the killing plague or Israel during the census, the focus was on the “first one” regardless of there being any later-born siblings. In those large populations treated as a whole, we do not know, nor do we need to know if any individuals had additional children. However, in specific instances, such as with Esau, the meaning of the word “firstborn” is quite specific in saying that there was another sibling. You apparently have chosen the ‘general’ case as your preferred understanding of “firstborn.”

Re: the usage of “til” or “until,” again I see obfuscation. So, using your research conclusions, please tell what these sentences mean: 1. The student told his parents, “I will not be home till exams are over.” Will the student be forever taking exams? Will he never go home? 2. The doctor told the new father to have no union with his wife till six weeks had passed. Did the new father understand that to mean ‘never again?’

Judging from the conclusions of your research, Matthew 1:25 should have been written: “And he (Joseph) never knew her (Mary) even after she brought forth her one and only child.”

Matthew certainly was skilled enough in language usage to write v. 25 exactly as he intended with no difficult, hidden meanings imbedded within it. We can either accept Matthew’s ordinary, commonsense usage or we can ‘interpret’ it into something entirely different.

One additional point to ponder: How could Matthew possibly have known whether or not Joseph had union with Mary after the birth of Jesus? Two ways: either Mary told him or he saw the results in the later-born siblings of Jesus.

To me personally, it matters little whether Jesus had siblings. Nothing changes the fact that He is the Only Begotten Son of God born of a virgin. It’s all about Him!

Now let the stone throwing begin!
Click to expand...
The entire post was pure conjecture and failed to refute my post, so the argument still stands, but let’s entertain this fiction.
  1. Who were his other siblings? We’ve already proven James, Joseph, Jude, and Salome were from Mary the wife of Cleophas and Simon was a Cananaean. Who were these siblings never mentioned in Sacred Scripture?
  2. The Holy Family went into Egypt as three and left as three (no other children). Even when Christ was twelve when the Holy Family attended the feast of Passover in Jerusalem, they were still only three as no other child was mentioned. So when did they have other children? After the account of finding Christ in the Temple? Joseph was of old age, how could he?
Not only evidence is against you but “pure and simple” reason is as well. Such a strange rebellion you Protestants have against Christ’s mother.
 
Tomb54 said:
ok I would like to aid a little to this discussion. Actually I would like to ask a question. By Jewish law, children were to take care of their mother so Jesus giving Mary to John in my opinion proves Jesus had not siblings but I want to think a little further on this theme. I would like to know where in Jewish law or the interpetation of Jewish Law that states this if anyone knows? Here is my reasoning; If Jesus gave Mary to John and Jesus had other siblings the Jesus would have been sinning to do so (or st least causing a sibling to sin which he also could not do) and since we know Jesus was sinless then it was not possible for him to have siblings. Thoughts? Anyone know of Jewish reference to prove this? am I right in my thinking?
Click to expand...
Jesus’ death fulfilled the Jewish Law code. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not in a position to care for the newly founded Christian way of life. John 7:5 and THEN there is this scripture from my sister’s Bible. NWT (1 Corinthians 9:4-5) *We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ce′phas, do we not?

Bedtime
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top