Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[Katholikos]

I tend to agree with you on this one, Axion. In fact it reminded me of a post I wrote about a month and a half ago concerning the validity of the infancy narratives. Anyhow, the main gist of that post was that in Luke’s introduction, he basically tells us that he diligently researched all aspects of his Gospel before comitting them to writing. Based on his background, I think it reasonable to take him at his word on that.

I have not implied that Luke’s account was not accurate. I hope no one got that impression. I believe it is accurate. I was making the point that Luke himself made – that he was not an eyewitness.

We don’t know of any “interviews” Luke may have conducted. We’re certainly free to speculate about where Luke got his facts. The scholar that discovers the Rosetta Stone that enables him to accurately date the writings of the Bible will earn an academic crown.

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God not because the Bible says it (it doesn’t), but because the Church that Christ founded for the salvation of the world teaches me that it’s true.

I’m like St. Augustine: “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 5).

JMJ Jay

 

[Kaily]

I think only the Catholic and Orthodox. Sorry, I didn’t read the other posts, so this may have been mentioned already.

Blessings

 

[manualman]

Perhaps I missed it, but no one has commented on the text of the Anunciation.

The angel proclaimed to Mary that she would conceive a child.
Mary, betrothed to Joseph, is puzzled and asks how this can be since she has not “known” man.

Clearly here, Mary knows where babies come from.
She is engaged and knows the birds and bees. Why is she so shocked to hear that she will become pregnant? Isn’t that what NORMALLY happens to new wives in those days?

The only answer is that something unwritten in the Bible has lead her to believe she will always be a virgin. Perhaps it is some childhood religious vow. Perhaps Joseph was an older widower born 2,000 years before the invention of Viagra. Whatever the case, she is undeniably surprised to hear that she will have a child. More surprised, in fact, than she is by the appearance of an angel anouncing it! That’s gotta tell you something.

IMO, the elderly widower theory holds consistent with Joseph’s absence beyond the flight to Egypt. Also the reaction of the people of his home town to his ministry implies a certain suspicion of illegitimacy - young wife, old man husband…

 

[New_Heart]

Matthew 12:46-47 While he yet talked to the people , behold , his mother <meter> and his brethren <adelphos> stood without , desiring to speak with him . Then one said unto him , Behold , thy mother <meter> and thy brethren <adelphos> stand without , desiring to speak with thee .

Matthew 12:46-47 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter , the son of Mary , the brother <adelphos> of James , and Joses , and of Juda , and Simon ? and are not his sisters <adelphe> here with us ? And they were offended at him .
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

1. meter
   mhter meter may’-tare
   apparently a primary word; a “mother” (literally or figuratively, immediate or remote):–mother.
2. adelphos
   adeljoV adelphos ad-el-fos’
   from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):–brother.
   Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3; Joh 2:12; 7:3,5,10; Ac 1:14; 1Co 9:5; Ga 1:19
3. adelphe
   adeljh adelphe ad-el-fay’
   fem of 80; a sister (naturally or ecclesiastically):–sister.
   See Greek 80
   So I need to understand something. If and it is so that Mary is Jesus’ mother, then according to the definitions presented doesn’t the brothers and sisters as stated in the Bible indicate that these were literally half-brothers/sisters as most non-catholics believe?

We know that Joseph was Jesus’ daddy by adoption according to the Bible, and it says that Joseph did not know Mary until after her first born came into the world, would we not therefore have the understanding that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage relationship? Another thing I noticed while researching this subject is that Jesus is the first born of Mary, that to me indicates that there are other children.

Jesus is called the only begotten of the Father, speaking of God. Only begotten and first born are two different things.

 

[God_slil_girl]

Malachi4U:

Most denominations I have found teach Jesus had siblings while Catholics maintain that Jesus had non. I have found no writings before the reformation that support siblings of Jesus.

The bible says he did *Mark 3:31-35.
shrug

 

[Axion]

Katholikos:

We don’t know why Acts end when it does. We can’t speculate about what the author of Luke/Acts would have written – we know only what he did write. Well, we can speculate, but it’s only guesswork. The NT doesn’t record the fate of any of the Apostles, though St. John was the last to die. Even John didn’t write about the martrydom of the other apostles, though he had to have known about their deaths. Why assume that Luke would have?

Luke does record the death of the Apostle James the Greater in Acts, as well as the non-Apostle, Stephen. He seems to be writing a chronological account, and to leave out the martyrdom, the most glorious witness of His main protagonists, Peter and Paul seems inexplicable if Luke knew of these events.

I opine that Luke is dated by most scholars after the destruction of Jerusalem because of his allusions to the event (e.g., Luke 21:20). I’ve read that some scholars are rethinking the dating of the gospels, but I’ve not read the documentation.

Yes. But the “scholarly” dating is based on disbelief. They assume that a mention of the destruction of the temple can not be prophecy as claimed. So, the prophecy being too accurate for them to accept, they assume that the work was written **after ** the event, by some unreliable dupester, and so date the gospel later! This is a system of dating that assumes that the gospel writers were liars, and which I cannot give a great deal of credence to.

But no matter when it was written, Luke’s Gospel is not an eyewitness account. Neither is Mark (written by John Mark, based upon the recollections of St. Peter). Matthew is questionable. Only John is a certain eyewitness among the Gospel writers.

Okay. Luke probably wasn’t a direct eyewitness to many of the Gospel events. However, he will have the next best thing, which is secondary information, from eyewitnesses who were there. When you read a newspaper story or watch the news. This is what you are getting. Secondary reports. Yet we consider this sort of information highly reliable, especially when we know that there are plenty of other eyewitnesses around to correct any errors that might get printed. This situation, which Luke would have been in, around AD 60, is very different from the 2nd Century period that a lot of bible critics have placed the gospels.

And its good to discuss with you too!

 

[Katholikos]

God'slil'girl:

The bible says he did *Mark 3:31-35.
shrug

If you haven’t done so already, I invite you to read the previous posts.

The language of the NT was Aramaic – the language of Jesus --which underlies the Koine Greek in which it was written.

Once again, the word “brother” in the Bible is used to mean many levels of kinship and no kinship at all. Abraham’s nephew Lot was his “brother,” Jacob’s uncle Laban was his “brother,” cousins are called “brothers” in 1 Chronicles 23:21-22. Friends, countrymen, allies, all were called “brothers.”

What the Bible “says” – the denotation of the words – may not be the meaning the sacred writers intended to convey. Translation from one language to another is difficult and complex.

Mary’s only child was Jesus.

JMJ Jay

 

[Axion]

New Heart:

So I need to understand something. If and it is so that Mary is Jesus’ mother, then according to the definitions presented doesn’t the brothers and sisters as stated in the Bible indicate that these were literally half-brothers/sisters as most non-catholics believe?

I don’t think most non-Catholics believe this. The Orthodox, Coptics, Armenians, Orientals and other ancient Churches all believe that Mary remained a Virgin and Jesus had no brothers or sisters. (They don’t believe he had any children either.)

The definitions you listed refer to Greek. Where adelphos is used but does NOT mean blood-brother, check Acts 7:26, Rev 22:9, Matt 5:47 Matt 5:22.

However the inhabitants of Palestine spoke ARAMAIC not Greek, and in Aramaic the word for Brother, has a wider meaning than in Greek and also covers Cousins, nephews and other close relations. The word is better translated Kinsman.

We know that Joseph was Jesus’ daddy by adoption according to the Bible, and it says that Joseph did not know Mary until after her first born came into the world, would we not therefore have the understanding that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage relationship? Another thing I noticed while researching this subject is that Jesus is the first born of Mary, that to me indicates that there are other children.

This is a common error. In the bible firstborn is a legal title. There are certain obligations that fall upon the first born child and its parents, whether or not another child is born. You can easily be both a “firstborn” and an “only” child.

Hebrews 1.6 and again, when God brings his Firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Does this mean that God had another Son? I don’t think so.

In fact the brethren of Jesus listed in some gospels can mostly be traced to Mary wife of Clopas, the “sister” (actually cousin) of the Virgin Mary.

 

[Katholikos]

Axion:

Luke does record the death of the Apostle James the Greater in Acts, as well as the non-Apostle, Stephen. He seems to be writing a chronological account, and to leave out the martyrdom, the most glorious witness of His main protagonists, Peter and Paul seems inexplicable if Luke knew of these events.

But the Apostle John would surely have known of the deaths of all the Apostles, since he was the last one of them alive, and he doesn’t mention the deaths of any of them. I just don’t draw any conclusions based on what he or any of the sacred writers did not write.

Yes. But the “scholarly” dating is based on disbelief. They assume that a mention of the destruction of the temple can not be prophecy as claimed. So, the prophecy being too accurate for them to accept, they assume that the work was written **after **the event, by some unreliable dupester, and so date the gospel later! This is a system of dating that assumes that the gospel writers were liars, and which I cannot give a great deal of credence to.

I’ve never seen even a hint that any scholars thought the sacred authors were liars. Neither have any that I’ve read say the sacred writers were clairvoyant.

Okay. Luke probably wasn’t a direct eyewitness to many of the Gospel events. However, he will have the next best thing, which is secondary information, from eyewitnesses who were there. When you read a newspaper story or watch the news. This is what you are getting. Secondary reports. Yet we consider this sort of information highly reliable, especially when we know that there are plenty of other eyewitnesses around to correct any errors that might get printed. This situation, which Luke would have been in, around AD 60, is very different from the 2nd Century period that a lot of bible critics have placed the gospels.

I’ve not read any scholars who date any writings (except, perhaps, 2 Peter) in the second century. The Protestant RSV dates Luke “during the last third of the first century.” I generally use the RSV dates because they’re from distinguished Protestant translators whose scholarship is acknowledged by Catholic scholars as well. The RSV-CE is much admired.

Peace, Jay

 

[Axion]

Katholikos:

But the Apostle John would surely have known of the deaths of all the Apostles, since he was the last one of them alive, and he doesn’t mention the deaths of any of them. I just don’t draw any conclusions based on what he or any of the sacred writers did not write.

But John didn’t write an Acts. He finishes his book at the Ascension, so he doesn’t deal with the histories of the Apostles. That comparison is not valid.

And I believe it is valid to draw information on a writer not recording something, when it is quite clear that he should have recorded it in order to fulfil his objective. Luke’s entire subject in Acts is the lives and witness of the Apostles after Jesus’s ascension, focussing on Peter and Paul. He records their troubles persecution and witness in deail. He records other martyrdoms. Yet the story stops with Paul in Rome for the first time. It fails to record the culmination of his witness in the martyrdom.

This is how the Book of Acts ends.
30 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

If someone wrote a life of, say Hitler, which just stopped after the invasion of Russia and gave no hint as to what was to follow, most people would ask why? A valid assumption would be that the work was finished at the time of the assault on Russia. Anyone claiming the work had been written decades after the war would have to explain why this life of Hitler totally ignores the crucial ending.

I’ve never seen even a hint that any scholars thought the sacred authors were liars. Neither have any that I’ve read say the sacred writers were clairvoyant.

They don’t say the Sacred Authors were liars in so many words. That would be too much for their sponsors to take! They just say it in their conclusions. Remember that many of the bible scholars who drew up these theories were supporters of the so-called “higher criticism”, which aimed to prove the Biblical books were not written by their traditional authors, but were assembled at far later dates by priestly redactors or editors, who fiddled with the stories.

As a controlling principle, they assume all prophecies that are fulfilled, were “added in” later on, that all miracles and supernatural events are later additions, and that basically the texts are unreliable fables. It is using these assumptions that they give a post- fall of Jerusalem date to the Gospels, and posit the existence of earlier proto-accounts like the fabled “Q”.

I’ve not read any scholars who date any writings (except, perhaps, 2 Peter) in the second century.

There are differences. But most writers criticising the reliability of the Gospels talk about them being written a century or so after the events took place.

 

[mtr01]

Katholikos:

I have not implied that Luke’s account was not accurate. I hope no one got that impression. I believe it is accurate. I was making the point that Luke himself made – that he was not an eyewitness.

I’m sorry that you got the impression that I was questioning whether or not you believed in the accuracy of Luke’s Gospel. I just copied from an earlier post to someone who did question the accuracy of Luke’s infancy narrative. I didn’t mean to imply that you did as well.

Katholikos:

We don’t know of any “interviews” Luke may have conducted. We’re certainly free to speculate about where Luke got his facts. The scholar that discovers the Rosetta Stone that enables him to accurately date the writings of the Bible will earn an academic crown.

I quite agree with you here. However, my point was simply that given his careful research plus the fact that he would have had ample opportunity to actually interview the Blessed Mother, it is not unreasonable to assume Luke did so. One of the (very few, IMO) positives in this regard to come out of the historical-critical school of Bilical scholarship is the recognition that the first two chapters of Luke are of a markedly Semitic style, as opposed to the rest of his Gospel. I take this as further support of the “interview theory” (even though it is not explicity stated in the Gospel itself).

Katholikos:

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God not because the Bible says it (it doesn’t), but because the Church that Christ founded for the salvation of the world teaches me that it’s true.

I’m like St. Augustine: “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 5).

JMJ Jay

Augustine is my patron saint, and I took his name for my Confirmation name, so all I can say is

 

[gus]

Those who claim Jesus had brothers or sisters are in reality denying his divinity. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then by the standards of the day (or any day) Mary became his spouse .Any additional children (by Joeseph) would be Adultery of the highest magnitude.
So to my separated brothers. You are treading on dangerous ground.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

gus:

Those who claim Jesus had brothers or sisters are in reality denying his divinity. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then by the standards of the day (or any day) Mary became his spouse .Any additional children (by Joeseph) would be Adultery of the highest magnitude.
So to my separated brothers. You are treading on dangerous ground.

Hi Gus,are you implying that Joseph was only the baby sitter. God Bless.

 

[gus]

If you want to call being trusted with the care of our Savior baby sitting than so be it. If the angel of the Lord came to you and entrusted the care of Mary and Jesus to you, how high on your list of things to do would be procreation?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

gus:

If you want to call being trusted with the care of our Savior baby sitting than so be it. If the angel of the Lord came to you and entrusted the care of Mary and Jesus to you, how high on your list of things to do would be procreation?

It would probably be the last thing on the list. BUT Joseph was still a man with feelings and emotions for He was human. I just cannot visualize being in Love and not being intimate with my wife… God Bless.

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

BUT Joseph was still a man with feelings and emotions for He was human. I just cannot visualize being in Love and not being intimate with my wife.

I, as a man, cannot love my wife and not have sex with her.

So Joseph, as a man, cannot love Mary and not have sex with her.

Therefore, Joseph had sex with Mary.

JMJ Jay

 

[mean_owen]

Katholikos:

I, as a man, cannot love my wife and not have sex with her.

So Joseph, as a man, cannot love Mary and not have sex with her.

Therefore, Joseph had sex with Mary.

JMJ Jay

Jay, your logic makes sense, of course, yet…I almost dare not say it…Gus’ logic above almost makes it sound like the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary. Isn’t that taking it a bit far?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

I, as a man, cannot love my wife and not have sex with her.

So Joseph, as a man, cannot love Mary and not have sex with her.

Therefore, Joseph had sex with Mary.

JMJ Jay

Hi Jay,Do you realize what you are saying? God Bless

 

[Katholikos]

mean_owen:

Jay, your logic makes sense, of course, yet…I almost dare not say it…Gus’ logic above almost makes it sound like the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary. Isn’t that taking it a bit far?

Catholics know Mary in three roles: daughter of God the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and Mother of God the Son. But Mary is not a spouse in the carnal sense.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARYINSC.htm
“Mary is the “spouse”: not only the virginal, legal spouse of St. Joseph (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27), but the virginal, real spouse of God the Father who willed her to be the Mother, according to His human nature, of His only-begotten Son (Gal 4:4); the spouse of God the Son, the redeemer, who intimately associated her with Himself in His redemptive work, as the new Eve beside the “new Adam”; the spouse of God the Holy Spirit, who, overshadowing her enabled her to conceive Jesus (Lk 1:35).”

credo.ndirect.co.uk/conceived.html

“It should also be made clear that at no time has Christian belief suggested that God’s part of this miracle was sexual. It has sometimes been interpreted that way by members of other religions and that is part of the reason why Muslims find the concept of God having a Son as repulsive.”

I don’t know what Gus meant. Let’s ask him. Gus, what did you mean? I’d be surprise if he intended any meaning other than the orthodox Catholic one.

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Doesnt the catholic church teach that Mary remained a virgin? If thats true you cannot remain a virgin and have an itimate relationship.