The many brothers of Jesus

[Nita]

…
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)!

I don’t think there was a whole lot of family left. I haven’t read thru all the chapters, but here are a couple of interesting segments:

2 Sam 9:3 And the king (David) said, “Is there not still some one of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God to him?” Ziba said to the king, “There is still a son of Jonathan; he is crippled in his feet.”

(At the time David was executing Saul’s descendents)
2 Samuel 21:7 But the king (David) spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, …

Also, by marriage, David was a brother-in-law of Jonathan’s (making him an uncle to Jonathan’s son).

 

[Nita]

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; …
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. …

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”.

…
Pax Tecum.
–Andrew.

That is really interesting.
But I have trouble in seeing how some of the 15 uses I found in the NT have that negative meaning – in reference to the kinsmen. (These are the 15 verses: Mark 6:4 – Luke 1:36, 58, & 61; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; – John 18:26 – Acts 7:7 & 14; 10:24; Romans 9:3; 16:7,11, & 21.)

Few examples:
Luke 2:44 but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
Romans 16:11 Greet my kinsman Hero’dion.
Romans 16:21 Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip’ater, my kinsmen.

In quite a few of the verses I’m able to see some negative perspective about the kinsman, but not in all - especially the three above. Could you point out how the kinsman in those 3 verses would be considered in a negative or embarrassing way?
Thanks in advance.

Peace be with you also,
Nita
P.S. I sent you a PM asking how to do the Greek characters on a CAF post.

 

[diggerdomer]

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 you deny the possibility that Joseph was previously married, that’s fine, but many Church Fathers and Doctors interpreted the passage this way. The Church has not infallibly declared that it cannot mean siblings. The Church does not teach that it’s a myth that Mary was perpetually virgin.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That is really interesting.
But I have trouble in seeing how some of the 15 uses I found in the NT have that negative meaning – in reference to the kinsmen. (These are the 15 verses: Mark 6:4 – Luke 1:36, 58, & 61; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; – John 18:26 – Acts 7:7 & 14; 10:24; Romans 9:3; 16:7,11, & 21.)

Few examples:
Luke 2:44 but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
Romans 16:11 Greet my kinsman Hero’dion.
Romans 16:21 Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip’ater, my kinsmen.

In quite a few of the verses I’m able to see some negative perspective about the kinsman, but not in all - especially the three above. Could you point out how the kinsman in those 3 verses would be considered in a negative or embarrassing way?

A word which is generally used in the negative will suggest a negative meaning even in places where it isn’t obvious; Doing an exhaustive search will show that the general trend of the word is twofold – either an explicit negative, or a general inclusion of everyone including negative influences.

In Luke 2:44, I would point out that the situation is negative. The relatives being mentioned are no better than acquaintances – notice it does not say, kinsman and close friends. These are people with fickle quality – eg: not very well known.
Should they have found him among them, they would have had reason to be upset for these people “knew” them at least superficially – and yet they made no effort to have Jesus let his parents know where he was, nor to send their own children or a parent to let them know. When I take my niece or nephew someplace, I am sure to let my sister know – or at least her husband. So, although this is not an egregious negative – it is, none-the-less, socially poor manners which are being examined. ( They eventually find him in the temple, and note what he says to them – “did you not know”, which underscores that there was a social convention that he was following of which they should have been aware. He was twelve, and obtaining a blessing from the elders after proving one’s orthodoxy is permitted to a child still under his parent’s guidance.)

Establishing what is the negative (whether mild or strong) connotation of the word is not always going to be possible, but a little exploration:

Romans 16:11 – (Paul?) is referencing those who are imprisoned along with himself. They bear an insult by being there. Note, though, that A beloved “mother” is not called a kinsman (v 16:13). If written by Paul, I would think it a little avant garde to call a fellow prisoner a “kinsman” unless the shame went beyond the common one shared by both: but notice vv. 22 seems to suggest the Epistle had another writer/scribe besides Paul; so “kinsman” may indicate a third person’s perspective.

Of the other’s mentioned: Herodian is attached to the name Herod – Herod was a half Jew. If the name is more than a coincidence, than he would be a blemished member of the family.

Roman 16:21 lists three kinsmen: Lucios, Jason, and Sosipater.
I know that Lucios is from Cyrene which is a Roman province at the time of Christ; The name itself is heavily Greek – masculine as opposed to the name LUKE which ends in -ας; so I think the man distinct from the Gospel writer who is a pagan convert Presumably, then, these three are Jewish but from the dispersed Jews (diaspora). Cyrene, I believe, is one of the places that a false messiah LUKAS attempted to arise in the 10-100BC range (unsure of exact time); and it is generally a pagan town at the time of Jesus – and one which was purged by Rome because of the earlier revolt, so the Jews within it are not considered of the highest quality, or are perhaps oppressed in some fashion / second class.
It was Simon of Cyrene whom the Roman soldiers found no problem in indenturing to carry Jesus’ cross after him; bolstering the oppressed idea that comes to mind.

I would also assume (as a guess) that Paul calls them Kinsmen as a reference to their non-palestinian origin. Paul, also, since his topic in Romans is to a mixed community of Gentiles and Jews at Rome – had to be careful not to “rubber stamp” a Jew as the better of the Christians by the mere fact that they were Jewish. Beyond that, I am not certain what negative connotation the word would have; he is merely indicating a blood relative inclusive of bad and good blood here – so I take it to mean, a kinsmen without regard to social standing.

… continued …

 

[Huiou_Theou]

— A quick rundown of the other verses:
Mark 6:4 – Jesus is the kindred here; and he is “without honor” just as he finds his kindred dishonorable toward him.

Luke 1:36 – Elizabeth was barren; so her shame is being removed after this point.
1: 58 – The same, but also note – The tribe of Levi (and therefore AAron) were not given land of their own; so their life in the hill country of Judea is not a birth right, but a concession/arrangement. They are an “odd” couple in the region as well.

Luke 1:61 – Kindred here refers to both the good and the bad; they are saying, none of your family has the name John (Zecharia would have been John’s name had the townspeople had the choice.) They are at a loss as to whom she could possibly be naming the child after; for even the lesser of the family do not have the name John.

Luke 2:44 – already treated this one.
Luke 14:12 and Luke 21:16 are generic and don’t mean anything more than “the extended family including those of ill repute/fortune”. In 12 – the order is progressively less good, in 21:16 one can only see that it is not synonymous with “brethren”, but the context is betrayal in any event.
John 18:26 – The man in the text is not free, but like the one Peter cut the ear off – he is also a servant/slave. The context is solidarity with another in ill fortune.
Acts 7:7 & 14 – Doesn’t have kinsman in my copy of the Greek; but in vv. 14 don’t forget that Josephs brothers sold him into slavery. He does not call them the nicer “brothers”, but rather “kindred”.
Acts 10:24; Cornelius is not a Jew, and his relatives are less called than he is. This conversion was a scandal to many within the church, and Peter had to reassure the church that what God had decided through the Holy Spirit was not to be set aside lightly. None the less, Peter would later try to appease the “kindred” bashing of the Gentiles by dining separately with the Jews and with the Gentile converts – and lest one think that St. Paul was any better ( He was given a demon of the eyes so that blindness may be genuine, rather than purely condemnable and mental ) – St. Paul circumcised and bathed people at the temple for precisely the same reason after he had become a Christian and knew that these signs were without merit.

Romans 9:3 – St. Paul laments over the remainder of his tribe who do not convert to Christianity; in a parallel note, the tribe of Benjamin as a whole at one time had every woman executed in the old testament for a horrendous sin of theirs concerning the gang rape and murder of a concubine; and the remainder of the tribe defending the hideous act. After wiping out the entire reproductive capability of the tribe of Benjamin, and swearing that no man from another tribe would give a daughter of theirs to Benjamin – in order to prevent the tribe from becoming extinct, which would be a curse to their father’s posterity, the remaining (rash) tribes agreed to allow the remaining men of Benjamen “steal” wives from the other tribes. But as a whole, Benjamin was not the best favored tribe after that…

16:7 – Already treated of the prisoners, and the following. 11, & 21

One other thing I would note, is that Kinsman is used of people such as Boaz and Ruth, for Boaz was already of an impure line from Rahab the Harlot – and Ruth was impure Jew as well. Also, note carefully the term is applied in the book of Tobit to the woman immediately upon Tobit realizing she has had dead husbands… but he was attracted to her none the less…

A challenge is to find any application of the word kinsman to a singular person whom one knows is in good standing and is bearing no reproach, blindness, barrenness, mixed marriages, and the like. In general, the places where the word appears to have the least ill meaning are places where it is referencing a large body of people, eg: tribal history, where it can be taken to mean the whole group irrespective of reprobate members who are un-mentioned but obviously part of the family.

Thanks in advance.

Peace be with you also,
Nita
P.S. I sent you a PM asking how to do the Greek characters on a CAF post.

Thanks, Nita.
I hope my response was of some utility. Time to eat, perhaps I’ll finally fall asleep now…

–Andrew.

 

[Nita]

— …
A challenge is to find any application of the word kinsman to a singular person whom one knows is in good standing and is bearing no reproach, blindness, barrenness, mixed marriages, and the like. In general, the places where the word appears to have the least ill meaning are places where it is referencing a large body of people, eg: tribal history, where it can be taken to mean the whole group irrespective of reprobate members who are un-mentioned but obviously part of the family.

…
I hope my response was of some utility. Time to eat, perhaps I’ll finally fall asleep now…

–Andrew.

Thank you for all the effort and info. I am going to try and be alert to the “challenge” whenever reading Scripture. Hopefully the word “kinsman/kin” etc., when it pops up in a text, will act as a trigger to remind me.

Acts 7:7 & 14 – Doesn’t have kinsman in my copy…

Sorry, a typo. Should have been Acts 7:3 instead of 7:7.

 

[Erich]

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.

Acts 1:15:

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).

That’s Mary Ever Pregnant, not Mary Ever Virgin

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That’s Mary Ever Pregnant, not Mary Ever Virgin

In Catholic teaching, Virgin is not violated by the pregnancy. The loss of virginity refers to the parting of the female reproductive entry way, which happens firstly when a man “knows” a woman through sexual intercourse. Secondly, when a child stretches the same said area out at birth.

The formula of the church says she did not loose her virginity, before, during, or after the pregnancy – which is equivalent, in my understanding, of her never having had the birth canal breached. This also implies, as the Eastern churches explicitly celebrate, that the birth was not a normal vaginal delivery. C-section births were known at the time in spite of the crude medical technology, see the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud for information on how such an ab-normal birth was construed legally – but there is no history suggesting Mary had a c-section; so the only remaining understanding – is in agreement with the Eastern church’s celebration and insistence that God himself drew Jesus forth through the flesh without parting it: eg: in a foretaste of Jesus’ glorified body being able to go through walls without opening doors. See psalm 22 (eg: the one sung from the cross / my God, my God, … etc. for the minor evidence supporting such a view eg: but you O God drew me forth from the womb.)

Your post is terribly funny, none the less , and perhaps especially so because it misses the traditional understanding of “Ever virgin” which Mary clearly is in Catholic teaching.

–Peace.

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by Cachonga
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!).

dont protestants accept a form of sacred tradition in some way by accepting which books are in the NT, granted not Catholic sacred tradition but aren’t protestants accepting a guidance of the holy spirit in someone/group to agree on which books would be included and which ones would not (ie: 1 clement, shepard of hermas etc…).?

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.

OT

Gen 14:12-14 and they took Lot, abrams brothers son…And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive…

NT

1 Chron 23:22 And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them - septuagint NT

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.

i disagree, and i think you need to think this through a bit.
without Mary / Holy Spirit involvement and a virgin birth - there is no heir.
so sons of joseph prior to mary comment your making - forget about it.
otherwise you are ignoring the whole annunciation of Gabriel to Mary and her cooperation.
it needs to be the ‘firstborn’ of Mary with God the father.

i noticed how luke 2:7 calls jesus “her firstborn”, mat 1:25 “…her firstborn”

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).

can you explain your interpretation of “why” (ie: for what purpose) the catholic church even attempts to say Mary remained a virgin. it might help understand your view.

have you thought about it?
and i dont mean to be condecending.

 

[TEPO]

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

We all become Jesus’ brothers and sisters once we die in Gods friendship, as Saints.

 

[LilyM]

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.

.

By your logic, the 120 gathered in the upper room at Pentecost must also have been biological siblings, since Acts is equally inspired by God and there were equally other words that could’ve been used to describe them.

Not to mention the numerous times Paul in his epistles (which again are equally inspired etc etc) calls each and every one of the people to whom he is writing ‘brothers’. Clearly there are whole towns full of his biological relatives - no wonder he was so successful in his efforts to convert them!

As for Jesus being Joseph’s heir - the oldest son in David’s line was not always the heir. Solomon for one wasn’t the oldest son of David, if memory serves.