The many brothers of Jesus

[sirduckjr]

How does the Catholic religion refute the bible in the following excerpts of the bible.

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13 :55

Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3

But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. Galatians1:19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Jude 1-1

 

[diggerdomer]

How does the Catholic religion refute the bible in the following excerpts of the bible.

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13 :55

Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3

But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. Galatians1:19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Jude 1-1

Catholics do not refute the Bible. Catholics consider the Bible as the Word of God.

“Brothers” may refer to biological brothers, other male relatives (a common usage in the Semtiic language), or as “brothers” from a previous marriage of Joseph.

What it means, in the end, is open to numerous interpretations.

 

[Cachonga]

diggerdomer:

Catholics do not refute the Bible. Catholics consider the Bible as the Word of God.

Almost correct. Catholics consider the Bible to be PART of the Word of God. The other part is found in Sacred Tradition, which nobody seems to be able to define until the Church makes an “infallible” dogmatic decree (and only the “infallible” magisterium of the Church can define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition - how convenient!).

“Brothers” may refer to biological brothers, other male relatives (a common usage in the Semtiic language), or as “brothers” from a previous marriage of Joseph.

While it is true that the Jews would call each other “brother” (much the same way we might address a fraternity brother in college), I would assert that since the Scriptures were inspired by God Himself, and there were other words available for other types of relations (such as cousins or kinsmen), and they were used within the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, that in this case “brothers” and “sisters” means just that - siblings, children of Joseph and Mary.

It cannot be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (this is an idea that is found in later apocryphal works, such as the Prot-Evangelium of James). If Joseph had sons prior to Jesus, then Jesus would not be the undisputed heir to the throne of David. That right would belong to Joseph’s first born son.

What it means, in the end, is open to numerous interpretations.

Although the Church has “infallibly” declared that it cannot mean siblings (this is obviously based on the myth that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, but that is another topic), so you can believe what you want, just as long as you DON’T believe they were actual siblings (sounds more like the Church is interested in protecting their dogma than in the actual truth).

 

[JohnCS]

Almost correct. Catholics consider the Bible to be PART of the Word of God. The other part is found in Sacred Tradition, which nobody seems to be able to define until the Church makes an “infallible” dogmatic decree (and only the “infallible” magisterium of the Church can define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition - how convenient!).

While it is true that the Jews would call each other “brother” (much the same way we might address a fraternity brother in college), I would assert that since the Scriptures were inspired by God Himself, and there were other words available for other types of relations (such as cousins or kinsmen), and they were used within the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, that in this case “brothers” and “sisters” means just that - siblings, children of Joseph and Mary.

It cannot be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (this is an idea that is found in later apocryphal works, such as the Prot-Evangelium of James). If Joseph had sons prior to Jesus, then Jesus would not be the undisputed heir to the throne of David. That right would belong to Joseph’s first born son.

Although the Church has “infallibly” declared that it cannot mean siblings (this is obviously based on the myth that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, but that is another topic), so you can believe what you want, just as long as you DON’T believe they were actual siblings (sounds more like the Church is interested in protecting their dogma than in the actual truth).

If being the first born son to Joseph was the requirement for being the undisputed heir to the throne of David, then Christ isn’t the heir because he wasn’t the first born son of Joseph. Or do you claim that Joseph was the biological father or Christ?

 

[JohnCS]

Also, historians can show you that in that time in place, the first born son ruled a family almost as surely as the father of the family did, if the father was dead, the first born son ruled the family. What the ruler of the family said goes. It was not like it is now where kids back talked, ignored, or bossed around the family leader. Younger siblings would never every try to presume leadership and tell the family leader what to do, or even offer advice, especially in public. As we can see in scripture, Christ’s “brothers” often try to tell Jesus what to do. They tell him he should not go there, it would be better if he did something else. So, if they were really his brothers, they would have to been older than he. I’m pretty sure that it is not a “myth” that Mary and Joseph did not have relations until the birth of Christ, in fact I’m pretty sure that the word of God states it explicitly. Therefore, the “brothers” of Christ are not his actual brothers. This is why Sacred Tradition is so important, we have 2000 year old insight into the context of what is being explained in the Bible. If I had never heard of Christianity and just picked up a Bible to read one day, there is no way I would have the same interpretation as the Church, because I am not 2000 years old and do not know how things really were when the books were written. God bless,

John

 

[danto]

Another important clue that Jesus did not have any siblings is at the cross in John 19:26-27 when Jesus instructs the beloved disciple: “Behold, your mother” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Had Jesus had siblings His mother would have gone to live with one of them, not the disciple.

 

[Cachonga]

JohnCS:

If being the first born son to Joseph was the requirement for being the undisputed heir to the throne of David, then Christ isn’t the heir because he wasn’t the first born son of Joseph. Or do you claim that Joseph was the biological father or Christ?

Jesus was RECOGNIZED as the first born of Joseph (this could also be the case with adopted children). Of course Jesus was not concieved by normal, human means.

Also, historians can show you that in that time in place, the first born son ruled a family almost as surely as the father of the family did, if the father was dead, the first born son ruled the family. What the ruler of the family said goes. It was not like it is now where kids back talked, ignored, or bossed around the family leader. Younger siblings would never every try to presume leadership and tell the family leader what to do, or even offer advice, especially in public. As we can see in scripture, Christ’s “brothers” often try to tell Jesus what to do. They tell him he should not go there, it would be better if he did something else. So, if they were really his brothers, they would have to been older than he. I’m pretty sure that it is not a “myth” that Mary and Joseph did not have relations until the birth of Christ, in fact I’m pretty sure that the word of God states it explicitly. Therefore, the “brothers” of Christ are not his actual brothers. This is why Sacred Tradition is so important, we have 2000 year old insight into the context of what is being explained in the Bible. If I had never heard of Christianity and just picked up a Bible to read one day, there is no way I would have the same interpretation as the Church, because I am not 2000 years old and do not know how things really were when the books were written. God bless,

Here you seem to contradict what you said before. If Jesus was recognized as the first born of Joseph, He had the rightful claim ot the throne, otherwise, He wouldn’t. In regard to the way siblings behaved toward the first born, I would like to see some documentation on that claim. There are numerous instances in Scripture where younger siblings disputed with the first born.

It seems clear to me that you are basing your belief in the perpetual virginity on the “traditions” taught by the Church rather than the plain reading of the Scriptures. I would just ask you, since the Scriptures are unquestionably inspired by God, and God wants us to know Him clearly, why wouldn’t He have the writers of the Gospels give us the clear relationship between Jesus and His “brothers” and “sisters”? I assert that God did just that!

danto:

Had Jesus had siblings His mother would have gone to live with one of them, not the disciple.

The problem here is a misunderstanding of covenant relationships. John, as a believer in Jesus, is His “brother” (see Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35), and therefore there was no problem with John taking care of Mary. I would encourage you to read about the covenant made between David and Johnathan, and how David kept the covenant, even to caring for Johnathan’s son (even though he had a lot of family alive that could look after him). Jesus did not violate any Jewish law by giving His mother into the care of a covenant “brother” (especially since we don’t see any of His other brothers being present)!

 

[JimG]

Let’s just take this one as an example:

“But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” Galatians1:19

We know from the scriptures that there were two apostles named James. One was the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. The other James was the son of Alphaeus. Neither had Joseph for a father, and presumably, Mary did not commit adultery with either Alphaeus or Zebedee.

Also see here.

 

[Erich]

There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[inkaneer]

How does the Catholic religion refute the bible in the following excerpts of the bible.

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13 :55

Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. Galatians1:19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Jude 1-1

This subject comes up frequently. I responded to another poster who claimed that Catholics are the only ones who claim Mary had no other children. I pointed out that historically the protestant position of this has changed. Only recently have protestants been denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. But in the early years and centuries protestants also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary. They did so until it became “too Catholic” for protestants to do so. So they reinterpreted the scriptures by forcing a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos to mean a sibling brother. Now a strict interpretation is warranted if it can be shown that every time adelphos is used it is used to denote a sibling. However, if it can be shown where the word is obviously not used to mean a sibling then the strict interpretation is erroneous. So is there such as case in the NT scriptures? Actually the scriptures are full of instances where adelphos is used to denote other than a sibling. Do a word search using brother or brethren in the KJV and you will see them. But two examples will suffice here. First is Gal 1:10 where Paul says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” Here Paul meets Peter and one of the two Apostles named James who Paul says is the Lord’s brother [adelphos]. Now were one of the two Apostles named James actually Jesus’ sibling brother and the son of Mary and Joseph? The answer is no because one Apostle named James was the sibling of the Apostle John and they were sons of Zebedee. The other Apostle named James was the son of Alphaeus. See Mt 10:2-3 for verification. So this Apostle named James was not a sibling brother of Jesus. The second example is contained in Jesus’ words to Peter in Luke 22: 31-32:

" 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. "

There the word ‘brethren’ is adelphos. Is Jesus saying that all the Apostles are siblings of Peter? We know only one, Andrew, was Peter’s sibling brother. Obviously Jesus is not using adelphos to mean a sibling brother. But there are plenty of other examples. In Php 2:25 Paul calls Epaphroditus, “my brother” but they were not related. Paul calls Timothy a brother in Col 1:1 but again they were not related. In Col 4:7 Tychicus is his brother while in Col 4:9 his brother is Onesimus. In Phm 1:20 Pauls calls Philemon his brother and in 1Co 1:1 Sosthenes is his brother while in 1Co 16:12 Apollo is his brother. And to belabor the point even more in 2Co 2:13 Titus is Paul’s brother. Paul calls all of these people his brothers [adelphos] but in reality not a single one of them was his sibling.

Meanwhile the arguments for Jesus being the only child of Mary have a lot of merit. In the scriptures no one but Jesus is called a child of Mary. There is no mention of any other children when Jesus was found in the temple nor at the wedding feast at Cana. Mary was there Jesus was there even Jesus disciples were there but where are the other siblings? Funny that they were not invited. Where are the brothers to take care of Mary and why does Jesus then give her to John? But the most compelling argument, to me at least, is in Mary’s words to the angel at the announciation. In Luke 1:38 we read:

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. " [Luke 1:38]

Mary calls herself a “handmaid” of the Lord. The Greek word translated as handmaid is doule and it means a bondswoman, a handmaid, a female slave. The idea communicated by this word is that of ownership or dedication. Mary is dedicated to the Lord and to no other man. As such she will not have other children.

In addition, there is a big elephant in the room that I believe, no one has mentioned thus far. That is the absence of anyone at anytime in history claiming the bragging rights that they were a sibling or a blood relative of Jesus Christ. If ever there was a name to be dropped by name droppers then Jesus of Nazareth is it. Even if you married someone who had a friend whose third cousin’s husband was a cousin of Jesus 20 zillion times removed you would have bragging rights. Yet throughout history there is an absolute vacuum, a silence that is complete. No one ever made such a claim. In the early church where various cities bragged they had the body of this Apostle or that Saint or that they received the Gospel from this or that Apostle there are two claims never made. No place claimed they had the body of Mary and no one claimed to be Jesus’ brother or sister.

 

[danto]

The problem here is a misunderstanding of covenant relationships. John, as a believer in Jesus, is His “brother” (see Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35), and therefore there was no problem with John taking care of Mary. I would encourage you to read about the covenant made between David and Johnathan, and how David kept the covenant, even to caring for Johnathan’s son (even though he had a lot of family alive that could look after him). Jesus did not violate any Jewish law by giving His mother into the care of a covenant “brother” (especially since we don’t see any of His other brothers being present)!

Customarily it would have fallen to the next born to take in the mother. If there were no other siblings the mother would be left to take care of herself. I would agree with you, if there were no other siblings, Jesus could give his Mother to a covenenant “brother” - which is precisely what he did.

Regarding your other point - There isn’t any evidence that family was looking after Jonathan’s son (Meribbaal) given that he was staying in the house of Machir when called for by David. In fact the text implies there were no other survivors of Saul’s house. This case doesn’t seem to set any precedent as you indicate.
[BIBLEDRB]2 Samuel 9:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Crown_of_Thorns]

There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

Really, really excellent and comprehensive answer. Praise God for your knowledge of Scripture.I am quoting it, so that it is saved onto my account for future reference.

O Mary conceived without sin; pray for us who have recourse to thee

 

[Nita]

While it is true that the Jews would call each other “brother” (much the same way we might address a fraternity brother in college), I would assert that since the Scriptures were inspired by God Himself, and there were other words available for other types of relations (such as cousins or kinsmen), and they were used within the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, that in this case “brothers” and “sisters” means just that - siblings, children of Joseph and Mary.

In the RSV (English), the word “cousin” is used only once, in Col 4:10 (Greek anepsios). Also, occurs only the one time in the Greek NT.
The Greek word (syggenez) translated “kinsman/kinswoman/kin” etc. appears only 15 times in the Greek New Testament. It never occurs in the Septuagint (at least on my Greek software). So, **it appears the word was rarely used **- which probably has a lot to do with why it was not used in the Mt. and Mk. passages cited in the OP.

“Brother/s” on the other hand, abounds in Scripture - both OT and NT. It seems to be the normal way to express relationship. (161 uses in the RSV English New Testament; and 343 uses showed up for the adelphos word base in the Greek New Testament!)

I apologize for the poor transliteration of the Greek. It’s a simple letter for letter using the chart given on the following site stevemorse.org/greek/grk2eng.html
I do not know how to get the Greek characters on the forum. Am able to do it on a Windows document, but not here.

 

[Erich]

Really, really excellent and comprehensive answer. Praise God for your knowledge of Scripture.I am quoting it, so that it is saved onto my account for future reference.

Thanks, but – much as I’d like to – I can’t claim credit for coming up with it (though I was familiar with bits and pieces of it). I saw it somewhere else and quoted it, but over time I lost track of my original reference.

 

[MariaG]

Almost correct. Catholics consider the Bible to be PART of the Word of God. The other part is found in Sacred Tradition, which nobody seems to be able to define until the Church makes an “infallible” dogmatic decree (and only the “infallible” magisterium of the Church can define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition - how convenient!).

While it is true that the Jews would call each other “brother” (much the same way we might address a fraternity brother in college), I would assert that since the Scriptures were inspired by God Himself, and there were other words available for other types of relations (such as cousins or kinsmen), and they were used within the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, that in this case “brothers” and “sisters” means just that - siblings, children of Joseph and Mary.

It cannot be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (this is an idea that is found in later apocryphal works, such as the Prot-Evangelium of James). If Joseph had sons prior to Jesus, then Jesus would not be the undisputed heir to the throne of David. That right would belong to Joseph’s first born son.

Although the Church has “infallibly” declared that it cannot mean siblings (this is obviously based on the myth that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, but that is another topic), so you can believe what you want, just as long as you DON’T believe they were actual siblings (sounds more like the Church is interested in protecting their dogma than in the actual truth).

So having read a GREAT biblical explanation, can you concede that on this point, you may actually be wrong, and it is more than a myth or at least that there is no biblical mention of any children Mary the mother of Jesus had? No biblical mention of brothers of jesus that came from the womb of His mother, Mary?

God Bless
Maria

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

More resources HERE

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In the RSV (English), the word “cousin” is used only once, in Col 4:10 (Greek anepsios). Also, occurs only the one time in the Greek NT.
The Greek word (syggenez) translated “kinsman/kinswoman/kin” etc. appears only 15 times in the Greek New Testament. It never occurs in the Septuagint (at least on my Greek software). So, **it appears the word was rarely used **- which probably has a lot to do with why it was not used in the Mt. and Mk. passages cited in the OP.

“Brother/s” on the other hand, abounds in Scripture - both OT and NT. It seems to be the normal way to express relationship. (161 uses in the RSV English New Testament; and 343 uses showed up for the adelphos word base in the Greek New Testament!)

I apologize for the poor transliteration of the Greek. It’s a simple letter for letter using the chart given on the following site stevemorse.org/greek/grk2eng.html
I do not know how to get the Greek characters on the forum. Am able to do it on a Windows document, but not here.

Hi Nita,

Genes 12:1 και ειπεν κυριος τω αβραμ εξελθε εκ της γης σου
και εκ της συγ-γεν-ει-ας σου ( And out of-the kinsman of-you )
και εκ του οικου του
πατρος σου εις την γην ην αν σοι δειξω.

Syn-gen-eias (together-born/come to be - with ) of you.
The word in Greek for “Kinsman” indicates a genesis together with, literally “Born together”. It clearly does appear in the LXX but with many variations of verb endings. A contextual study will show that Kinsman is virtually ALWAYS used to mean people in the family whom one despises the activity of. They are the embarrassing members of the family for various reasons.

For example, Elizatbeth is spoken of as the kinsman of Mary (but not vice versa). Elizabeth was bearing the traditional curse of barrenness. There was “something” wrong with her in Jewish thinking – and it is the advent of John the baptist which removes her reproach from among men.

The same type of reasoning applies to the myriad of other instances where the word is used both in the NT and the OT. One uses Kinsman to refer to a member of the family tribe (remote or close cousin is irrelevant) whom has brought some kind of shame on the tribe as a whole. When one refers to the “whole” tribe, both good and bad, the word is used – when one refers to the forefathers who sinned, the word is used. St. Paul uses it of all the members of the tribe of Benjamin who do not convert to Christianity; He says, if it were possible I could be cut of from Christ for the sake of my Kinsman – referring to Moses and later prophets who would stand in the breach between God’s wrath and the less desirable of the tribes of Israel. However, I think beginning with Hosea, God forbade any further permission for one to act as martyr and priest on behalf of those who continued to sin (the willful and not accidental kinsman). He would no longer accept a sacrificial go between, as his name had been sufficiently vindicated by putting up with the sins of the forefathers and Moses’ argument appears to no longer apply.

The contrast between Jesus “kinsman” and his “mothers, brother’s, and sisters” whom are his disciples – and thus not perpetual scandal causers is something to pause at. God put up with the Israelite kinsman even to millennium, but of the new churches (eg: those of Revelation) their tolerance was only short lived before God cut them off. His willingness to weed out the chaff in these latter days is much more aggressive than it has been in the times of the fathers.

A good thing to meditate on is that Jesus chose to call his own disciples, “Friends” and “Brothers”, whereas the scriptural lament from a prophet is that “he cam unto his own (kinsman?) and they did not know him.” Jesus did not choose to call his disciples “kinsman”; For he himself had made them clean for the present that they became “Brothers”.

; -----

Erich, Crown of thorns. Be careful with the argument you have there; it needs a bit of polishing to be clear and without flaw. To say that a man is “brother” of the Lord does not mean that he is bilogical brother; nor does it mean he ISNT a bilogical brother. Person “A”'s brother status (either yes or no) to person “B” along with person “B”'s brother status to person “C” (again either affirmative or denying) tells you nothing about person “C”'s relationship to person “A”. One always has to look to the parent of the child to determine the closeness of the blood relationship.

In the cited passages where the “Carpenter’s son” is mentioned, the grammatical constructions group Jesus with Mary – but go out of their way to group all other male children as independent of Mary (The females are actually ambiguous). The extra grammar to exclude the children from Mary indicates she had no other sons among his cousins/kinsman in that synagogue. Half brothers, covenant brothers (through other means) are not dealt with here – and it isn’t inconceivable that some of his kinsmen might have become covenant brothers with Jesus in the breaking of the bread at a later time. So, just a caution, look carefully at each relationship when making an argument.

Pax Tecum.
–Andrew.

 

[inkaneer]

Jesus was RECOGNIZED as the first born of Joseph (this could also be the case with adopted children). Of course Jesus was not concieved by normal, human means.

Is not an only child the first born? I think it is.

It seems clear to me that you are basing your belief in the perpetual virginity on the “traditions” taught by the Church rather than the plain reading of the Scriptures. I would just ask you, since the Scriptures are unquestionably inspired by God, and God wants us to know Him clearly, why wouldn’t He have the writers of the Gospels give us the clear relationship between Jesus and His “brothers” and “sisters”? I assert that God did just that!

A ‘plain reading’ of the scriptures??? A plain reading of the scriptures would tell you that all of the Apostles are Peter’s siblings. See Luke 22:32. A plain reading of the scriptures would also tell you that the Apostle James was Jesus’ sibling and couple that with Luke 22:32 than all of the Apostles are Jesus’ siblingss. Do a word search in Paul’s epistles and see how many people Paul claims are his siblings. I count eight people including one black man. Your ‘plain reading’ of the scriptures would be very wrong.

The problem here is a misunderstanding of covenant relationships. John, as a believer in Jesus, is His “brother” (see Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35), and therefore there was no problem with John taking care of Mary. I would encourage you to read about the covenant made between David and Johnathan, and how David kept the covenant, even to caring for Johnathan’s son (even though he had a lot of family alive that could look after him). Jesus did not violate any Jewish law by giving His mother into the care of a covenant “brother” (especially since we don’t see any of His other brothers being present)!

Since when did the Apostle John have a covenant relationship with Jesus? Where is that in scripture? In Jewish family life of the first century it was the duty of the youngest child to take care of the parents in their old age. Jesus had a lot of other things to worry about on the cross besides his mother. Let the youngest child do his own duty. Unless of course Jesus was the youngest child. An only child you know has the distinction of being both the first born as well as the youngest child. So what does Jesus do? He gives the care of His mother to the youngest of his disciples and thus fulfills the requirements of the times. The youngest of the Apostles, who are called Jesus’ brethren [See Mt 28:10, John 20:17] fiufills the duty of the first born youngest child [only child] who dies on the cross.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you don’t mind, I’m going to snip the Catholic Baiting and focus on the subject at hand.

While it is true that the Jews would call each other “brother” (much the same way we might address a fraternity brother in college), I would assert that since the Scriptures were inspired by God Himself, and there were other words available for other types of relations (such as cousins or kinsmen), and they were used within the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, that in this case “brothers” and “sisters” means just that - siblings, children of Joseph and Mary.

If Mary had other sons, i.e. James, Joses, and what-not, why was she only called “Mary, the Mother of Jesus”? Why not, “Mary, the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, etc.”?

Also, we see in Acts that there are many, many brothers. Are they all related or is the term “brother” used for more than “brother”?

 

[Nita]

Hi Nita,

Genes 12:1 και ειπεν κυριος τω αβραμ εξελθε εκ της γης σου
και εκ της συγ-γεν-ει-ας σου ( And out of-the kinsman of-you )
και εκ του οικου του
πατρος σου εις την γην ην αν σοι δειξω.

Syn-gen-eias (together-born/come to be - with ) of you.
The word in Greek for “Kinsman” indicates a genesis together with, literally “Born together”. It clearly does appear in the LXX but with many variations of verb endings. A contextual study will show that Kinsman is virtually ALWAYS used to mean people in the family whom one despises the activity of. They are the embarrassing members of the family for various reasons.

Pax Tecum.
–Andrew.

Hi Andrew,
Thank you very much for the correction. I don’t know how I missed finding the word on the word list. Granted, I’m not used to looking at Greek letters, but still, the word list is arranged alphabetically and I should have found it. Sloppy.
The search engine came up with around 70 instances of its use in the Septuagint.