The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old_Scholar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deacon110 said:
I don’t think this is relevant here. You’re implying that Jesus had to be the younger for HIS brothers to say this to HIM. Why? They weren’t ordering HIM. The Bible clarifies this for us by saying that they weren’t believers. So we can assume maybe they meant it sarcastically and not literally. Almost like saying we don’t believe you here so go show someone else.
Click to expand...
Why do I say this? Because the younger would view the older in the same light as the father: head of the family. Period. Sarcasm would not be acceptable behavior. You are reading 2008 American into 33AD Middle eastern. Let us look at this passage together.
John Chapter 7
1 After this, Jesus moved about within Galilee; but he did not wish to travel in Judea, because the Jews were trying to kill him.
2 But the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near.
3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
4 No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”
5 For his brothers did not believe in him.
Click to expand...
Now, does this seem like sarcasm, a request, or more of a command? Words of wisdom? Again, the youngert would not impose wisdom upon the elder.
6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you.
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil.
8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.”
9 After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee.
Click to expand...
Does this seem like Jesus took it as sarcasm? How do you think Jesus recieved the message?
 
teadough said:
you have completely re-worded what I said to fit your explanation. And you are wrong in saying what I said is not “completely” out of order.Thanks for the History lesson I had no idea that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit;)
Click to expand...
LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL, YOUR HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM IAM HAVING
 
Deacon110 said:
elvisman;3334729:
So your question is what happens after GOD humbles all of Jesus enemies? Will he still sit at the right hand of GOD? Unfortunately we don’t know GOD’s complete plan after this happens.
…
…

PEACE
Click to expand...
Actually we do know what happens. We know that Jesus reigns forever at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where else would Jesus be?

Moreover, Revelation 3:21 says “He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” This pretty much says it all…we know very well where Jesus sits even after all the enemies are humbled.

And here is another verse:

Eph 1:20
he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, **not only in this age but also in that which is to come; **
Click to expand...
 
The statement that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is a true one and needs to be explored.

Please read this terrific article on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as it applies to Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The article delves into the Jewish understandings of a spousal relationship, the Kiddushin, and the Hebrew words that clue us into the important truths related to Mary’s perpetual virginity and her relationship with Joseph. This article is really quite profound and shows the necessity of serious scholarship on this issue.

See the article at: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Enjoy!
 
heisenburg said:
I am curious… as has been mentioned there is the POSSIBILITY that scripture could be talking about close acquaintances, and cousins…

However, I would like to delve into this from a different perspective…

Assume for one moment that scripture means brother and sister directly, though as mentioned, this is debatable…
  1. Why is there no one in history, no matter how close you get to Christ claiming to be his sibling? You can find absolutely no record of it in either Christian, or non Christian sources. Though Christ was sin free, the number of siblings implied would have been enough to were atleast one would have fallen to the sin of Pride, using his ‘status’ to advance himself…
  2. Minimum number of siblings - If Mary was “ok’ed” to have other kids, how many is a minimum… Well, for starters, it appears that the two had at least a decent relationship. There is no indication from scripture or other, that Mary and Joseph were ‘distant’ from each other… So, how many kids are possible…
Assume for a moment Joseph died immediately after they found Jesus in the temple, 12 years old… Assuming 1 child every two years is not too hard… 9 months gestation, 1.25 years to re-impregnate. Under normal relations, this should be possible… Assume worst case morality, 33% (worse than anything today) that would mean Jesus had a minimum of 4 brothers and sister. by the time they found Jesus in the temple.

However, there is no mention of this in scripture… It simply says Mary and Joseph took, and returned… no mention of any other kids just the three…

Again, this plays into the fact that there is no other mention of any siblings outside of scripture…
  1. Well, all the kids could have died… if you do the math, there is only ~.5% percent chance of that… less than one percent… Not likely…
  2. Mary/Joseph could have become sterile… Which means no other kids
Again, no matter how you look at it… historically, there is absolutely no evidence of any other children. I know a lack of evidence does not prove it, but it does cast doubt… Show me a separate Historical source, either Christian or secular, that talks about siblings, and I will consider, but they don’t exist.

There fore, you have three possibilites
  1. Your understanding is flawed and scripture speaks not of blood brothers and sister, but of cousins and close friends
  2. All siblings died… possible, but Highly unlikely…
  3. The existed, but nothing written about them… again, possible, but even more unlikely than they all died
  4. Conspericy… Catholic Church buried all evidence… :rolleyes:
You choose…

But look at the evidence

In Christ
Click to expand...
You are overlooking the best evidence. Scripture says there were children and names them. In addition, it says so several times and calls James the brother of the Lord. Even when his burial ossuary was found it had the inscription on it that read:
James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.

What more proof do you need? Everything you read about “maybe” there were cousins and not brothers mentioned, etc. are merely fabrications. The Scriptures seem quite clear, so clear that it is strange that anyone would question them…
 
Pax said:
The statement that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is a true one and needs to be explored.

Please read this terrific article on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as it applies to Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The article delves into the Jewish understandings of a spousal relationship, the Kiddushin, and the Hebrew words that clue us into the important truths related to Mary’s perpetual virginity and her relationship with Joseph. This article is really quite profound and shows the necessity of serious scholarship on this issue.

See the article at: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Can you find in Scripture that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit? This seems ridiculous on its face.
 
Even when his burial ossuary was found it had the inscription on it that read:
James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus
Click to expand...
.

I know the burial ossuary you’re talking about. I think they found one with Big Foots foot in one,too.😉

catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Doesn’t it seem likely that with the Catholic would have had some sort of traditional story of the brothers of Jesus passed down over all these years? I used to not think He had siblings either when I was protestant and reading scripture from a different view. Once I got a better understanding of how rich the Catholic Church history is and how stories are such a big part of their history I one day realized that it would have been impossible for the Church not to have passed this down.

Even if the Catholic Church would have passed down a traditional story that said Jesus had siblings Protestants would not believe it anyways since the Bible doesn’t say so.
 
OS…

You wish to keep saying that there is only one meaning to those passages, but this is not true… I am a blood relative of cousin, but I am not his brother… These are valid meanings as it applies to scripture as well. Words mean a multitude of different things, especially Greek.

Also, with respect to the bible being the best evidence…

While I agree that the bible is the best source of truth period, it is not separate from history. If there is NO evidence of any brother or sister in either Christian or secular sources, then is it possible that your understanding of those scriptures is off.

The bible isn’t wrong, but it also won’t be the opposite of history. If there is no history of any kind outside of scripture, then that means that the understanding you speak of is off because the bible WON’T be the opposite of scripture…

Further more, if you really do believe the tomb ‘story’ thats says more than you think. And not in a positive light.

With respect to Decon’s Comments, While you do put forth a logical reason why they could have existed, the fact is, there still is no evidence. We have Christian writing about a lot of things outside of the bible, but no where do we have any mention of siblings. And as mentioned, I can be blood relatives, but nor a sibling.

But all the same, thank you for your comments

In Christ
 
Mark 6:3 - says James, Joses, Judas and Simon are “brothers” of Jesus. And also mentions “sisters” of Jesus. We know that there was no word for cousin, nephew, niece, aunt or uncle in Hebrew or Aramaic. The word used for these is “brother” or “sister.” An example is Gen.14:14 where the writer calls Abram’s nephew Lot, “brother.” Gen.11:27 shows that Lot is Abraham’s nephew.

If Jesus had brothers or sisters, would the last thing He did be to grievously offend them by (John 19:26-27) saying to Mary, “Woman, behold your son” and to John, “Behold your mother.”? If Mary had any other sons, it would have been a significant slap in the face to them that John was entrusted with the care of their mother. Jewish custom was that the care of the mother fell to the sons; the oldest son first. If you believe Mary had other sons, then you also believe that one of the last things Jesus did was to insult them. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

Matt.27:55-56 says that James’ and Joses’ mother was “looking on from afar”; this could not have been the Virgin Mary; she was at the foot of the cross. John 19:25 clearly separates the mother of Jesus from these other three women. In Mark 15:47, Mary, mother of Joses is identified and it is clear it is not the Virgin Mary. This Mary is obviously not the mother of Jesus, as she is mentioned in addition to her. Another obvious reason is the fact that Jesus’ mother was married to a man named Joseph, not Cleophas.

Observe how Jesus himself uses the word “brothers” in Matthew 28:10 and see what happens in verse 16: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’…The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had ordered them.” Were the disciples His siblings? Of course not!

In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called “THE” son of Mary not “A” son of Mary. Elsewhere, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never the mother of anybody else. Even Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli taught that Mary remained a virgin. They believed that it was the clear teaching of Scripture.

Is Scripture contradicting itself saying that Mary is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon in one place but saying a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses in another place? No. Scripture does not contradict itself. The plausible explanation is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins.

In Acts 1:14-15, when the Apostles were together praying with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, it calls the men that were present, “brothers” of Jesus. There were about 120 people there. That would leave the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Mary would have been in perpetual LABOR!
 
Old_Scholar said:
Can you find in Scripture that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit? This seems ridiculous on its face.
Click to expand...
God’s plan is that spouses produce off spring.

Jesus is the son of God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Mary became the mother of Jesus by way of the Holy Spirit.

Who is the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

Mary as spouse of the Holy Spirit is no more ridiculous on its face than to say that Jesus is the son of God. They go hand in hand. You simply do not have one without the other.

Also, please show me even one verse in scripture that says that any person other than Jesus is specifically named as a son or daughter of Mary. We read statements like brothers and sisters which could be extended family members, but we never read of someone other than Jesus described as “so and so the son/daughter of Mary the mother of Jesus or wife of Joseph.” We don’t read that because it never happened.
 
Old_Scholar said:
Can you find in Scripture that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit? This seems ridiculous on its face.
Click to expand...
We know that despite being bethrothed to Joseph, they had not yet consummated their marriage. And prior to the consummation, Mary accepted the proposal from God in Luke 1: 38-- Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

While she continued to live with Joseph and invite him to be the stepfather of Jesus, the combination of the former and the following make it clear that she was united to God.

Mathew 1:18-- Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

To suggest that God would “use” Mary to just be a baby factory is to impute on God what we would characterize as immoral.

Later in Luke 1:46-47 in the context of her pregnancy when visiting Elizabeth, ‘And Mary said: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.’

She did not say “My soul proclaims the depravity of the Lord” as it would declare if you think this was just a temporary arrangement of convenience by God.
 
heisenburg said:
OS…

You wish to keep saying that there is only one meaning to those passages, but this is not true… I am a blood relative of cousin, but I am not his brother… These are valid meanings as it applies to scripture as well. Words mean a multitude of different things, especially Greek.

Also, with respect to the bible being the best evidence…

While I agree that the bible is the best source of truth period, it is not separate from history. If there is NO evidence of any brother or sister in either Christian or secular sources, then is it possible that your understanding of those scriptures is off.

The bible isn’t wrong, but it also won’t be the opposite of history. If there is no history of any kind outside of scripture, then that means that the understanding you speak of is off because the bible WON’T be the opposite of scripture…

Further more, if you really do believe the tomb ‘story’ thats says more than you think. And not in a positive light.

With respect to Decon’s Comments, While you do put forth a logical reason why they could have existed, the fact is, there still is no evidence. We have Christian writing about a lot of things outside of the bible, but no where do we have any mention of siblings. And as mentioned, I can be blood relatives, but nor a sibling.

But all the same, thank you for your comments

In Christ
Click to expand...
I would ask you to show me the mounds of documentation we have outside the Bible on Mary, Jesus, and Joseph.

If we barely have anything outside the Bible on Jesus, nothing on Mary and nothing on Joseph, then why would we expect to have so much on Jesus brothers and sisters.

And I ask again. The RCC preaches that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Where is the documentation on those children. You’re making a blanket assumption that since documentation doesn’t exist, they as people didn’t exist. That argument just doesn’t hold water. Let’s assume they were cousins then. Where is the documentation on the cousins? If that doesn’t exist do we say they didn’t exist?
 
teadough said:
I do see what you are trying to say,but either way it still does not make sense in the context of how the bible words it in my opinion. Yes, you can say it does in some sense so I will forgo my example.

I know how you feel about not labeling yourself as “protestant” when you go to a “non-denominational” church. I used to say the exact same thing.

Best of luck to you. I hope and pray that you find what you are looking for.
Click to expand...
Thanks teadough. And I shall pray for you.

PEACE
 
Rocky said:
Which translation are you using for this quote in Matthew?
Seems to me you are now changing the words of Scripture to fit your argument.
Click to expand...
Don’t think so. I’ll use Douay Rheims:

24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Doesn’t matter what translation you use. The words are basically the same. Joseph took Mary as his wife, but did not consumate the marriage at the one year mark, which was the legal requirement then, because Mary hadn’t delivered Jesus yet. The bottom line is you can never get around the text stating that Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth. If she was a virgin, why even mention this verse? Why even use the word know when this pertains to marital relations? Douay Rheims tries to explain away the different implications of the word until using Jerome’s arguments. But they never address the word know. What did Joseph know about Mary after Jesus was born?

Not changing it to fit me. Just interpreting what’s already there.

PEACE
 
Deacon110 said:
Don’t think so. I’ll use Douay Rheims:

24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Doesn’t matter what translation you use. The words are basically the same. Joseph took Mary as his wife, but did not consumate the marriage at the one year mark, which was the legal requirement then, because Mary hadn’t delivered Jesus yet. The bottom line is you can never get around the text stating that Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth. If she was a virgin, why even mention this verse? Why even use the word know when this pertains to marital relations? Douay Rheims tries to explain away the different implications of the word until using Jerome’s arguments. But they never address the word know. What did Joseph know about Mary after Jesus was born?

Not changing it to fit me. Just interpreting what’s already there.

PEACE
Click to expand...
The expression in some English translations stating that Joseph “had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she had borne a son” seems to point to other children. But our English word *until *impies “only up to and not beyond.” The Greek and Aramaic words translated by *until *usually meant “up to” without ruling out the beyond. *Until *in English suggests that Joseph did have relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. But *until *in the Greek or Aramaic does not suggest the he did. It focuses only on the time up to the birth of Jesus and syas nothing about what happened thereafter. A similar expression in 2 Samual 6:23 states that Michal “had not child to the day of her death.” The English translation uses *to *instead of until, but the original word behind both phrases is the same, and obviously Michal did not have children after her death. In Matt. 23:20, Jesus says, “I am with you always, to eht end of the age.” (The word translated here as *to *is the same as the *until *of Matthew 1:25.)
 
1234 said:
It was commonplace in antiquity, particularly among the Greeks, to attribute special circumstances to the conception of heroes. Portents, gods conceiving the great man, gods being present at the conception, miraculous circumstances of all kinds for Plato and Alexander the Great, among others. Also astral portents at the birth of the god-child. The children were also often prodigies early in life, like the infant Hercules. The accounts of the conception and birth of Jesus date from Luke, one of the later gospels, writing in Greek for Greeks, and attributing to Jesus the credentials of their own gods.
Click to expand...
Except that Luke is the only Gospel writer that had prolonged contact with Mary. After the crucifixion John took her into his home, and relocated to Ephesus after the martrydom of Stephen. Luke and Paul spent at least two years in Ephesus on missionary journeys. This is why Luke has elements and details of the birth stories (from Mary) that the other gospel writers do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top