Why do protestants think Jesus had brothers?

[St_Violet]

correct me if I am wrong but does not the word “brother” have other meanings in the bible besides blood brother, just like the term “father”

 

[Eileen_T]

Read the protoevangelium of James… Jesus had half brothers from Josephs side of the family not Marys…

This was not included in Sacred Scripture, so is not an Article of Faith. No mention is made in the Bible of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the “sons of Mary” or “a son of Mary,” but only the son of Mary.

Besides, the “brothers” mentioned in the Gospels had fathers other than St Joseph.

 

[MelanieAnne]

correct me if I am wrong but does not the word “brother” have other meanings in the bible besides blood brother, just like the term “father”

As mentioned previously, the word for “brother” in the New Testament is just how someone translated the original word, which was written in another language and nearly 2000 years ago. The word, in the original, could mean “brother” but could also mean “cousin” since, in their society, such relationships were rather loosely defined compared to the present day.

It’s often a mistake to attempt to view any ancient situation using only our 20th or 21st century eyes. Their culture was completely different, they lived in a completely different world in many ways. To understand what the scriptures mean, we not only need to learn the words, but we need to learn something about the people of that time, so that we can give the written words the proper definition, the proper frame of reference, etc.

 

[mozart-250]

I’m sorry you don’t get it
I suggest you look around at the people who agree with your position. You are in leauge with those who would love to deny that Jesus is Christ.(that is the anti-Christ). You are well meaning. But I fear in your need to disprove the Church you do their work,

Umm…moderators??

BTW my question on why it is important to believe that Jesus had no brothers was not answered?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m sorry you don’t get it
I suggest you look around at the people who agree with your position. You are in leauge with those who would love to deny that Jesus is Christ.(that is the anti-Christ). You are well meaning. But I fear in your need to disprove the Church you do their work,

Please meditate on what I have said . You will be in my prayers

Gus,
Im sorry you feel this way about me. I love Jesus Christ as do all the people on this forum and Im including catholics here:thumbsup:

Im sorry I upset you because of my disagreement about the CC. I hope you can look beyond that and know I follow Christ as well.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Because if Mary had sex she would transfer the state of original sin to Jesus and thus make Jesus born of original sin…

How? Since Mary was a virgin when Christ was born how could having sex transfer original sin to Christ? He’s already outta there. This logic does not make sense or hold up.

 

[gus]

Gus,
Im sorry you feel this way about me. I love Jesus Christ as do all the people on this forum and Im including catholics here:thumbsup:

Im sorry I upset you because of my disagreement about the CC. I hope you can look beyond that and know I follow Christ as well.

I know what you say is true if I thought differently about you
I wouldn’t waste my time.
All I ask is for you to look at the "Secular Humanistic Jesus as Man bunch so prevelent today…
They advocate the same position as you using the claims of
Jesus’s siblings as proof of his non-divinity.
There is a huge non-christian world out there who will pretty much believe anything that the media throughs at them.
I don’t like words like anti-christ, It has been misued and abused in the past. I know you and all who think Jesus Is Christ are not
the anti-christ
If you read John’s letters he is pretty clear on the subject

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I know what you say is true if I thought differently about you
I wouldn’t waste my time.
All I ask is for you to look at the "Secular Humanistic Jesus as Man bunch so prevelent today…
They advocate the same position as you using the claims of
Jesus’s siblings as proof of his non-divinity.
There is a huge non-christian world out there who will pretty much believe anything that the media throughs at them.
I don’t like words like anti-christ, It has been misued and abused in the past. I know you and all who think Jesus Is Christ are not
the anti-christ
If you read John’s letters he is pretty clear on the subject

I think you have misunderstood my position. I do think Jesus is divine. Jeus Christ is the Messiah. He came to save the world. He saved me:thumbsup: He saved you:thumbsup:
I am a believer in the Trinity and that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived by the HS and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

I think Mary was a tremendous example for us to follow. She totally submitted to a Holy God and did His Will. AMEN!!!

I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Because they interpret the Bible as if it were written in the modern time rather than interpret Scripture in the time and the culture at the time. Many of Protestant Scholars fail to look that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for brother or sister. In the Gospels, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are his close relatives or cousins.

They could have used kinsmen but instead they write cousins as brother and sisters. Even in the OT, Lot is called brother by his uncle, Abraham.

Early Christians even believed that Mary and Joseph only had one son, and he is Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was twelve, he went to Jerusalem with his mother and father. There are no other siblings mention. Had Joseph and Mary had relations after Jesus, surely the babies would be mentioned in the Temple. Instead, there are only just Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Jesus had no brother or sister. James, the brethren of the Lord is Jesus second cousin. His mother is Mary, and his father is Clopas.

Most Protestants here will dismiss the claim as usually and disregard Christian tradition completely. St. Jerome himself believed that Joseph and Mary only had Jesus and no other children.

It’s odd that Protestants used St. Jerome by his rejection of the Deutrocanonical Books and the Septuagint (even though he later recanted) and insist in Hebrew canon than the Greek OT, yet they ignore his belief that Mary remain a virgin and that Jesus had no other brother or sister.

 

[believers]

Because they interpret the Bible as if it were written in the modern time rather than interpret Scripture in the time and the culture at the time. Many of Protestant Scholars fail to look that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for brother or sister. In the Gospels, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are his close relatives or cousins.

They could have used kinsmen but instead they write cousins as brother and sisters. Even in the OT, Lot is called brother by his uncle, Abraham.

Early Christians even believed that Mary and Joseph only had one son, and he is Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was twelve, he went to Jerusalem with his mother and father. There are no other siblings mention. Had Joseph and Mary had relations after Jesus, surely the babies would be mentioned in the Temple. Instead, there are only just Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Jesus had no brother or sister. James, the brethren of the Lord is Jesus second cousin. His mother is Mary, and his father is Clopas.

Most Protestants here will dismiss the claim as usually and disregard Christian tradition completely. St. Jerome himself believed that Joseph and Mary only had Jesus and no other children.

It’s odd that Protestants used St. Jerome by his rejection of the Deutrocanonical Books and the Septuagint (even though he later recanted) and insist in Hebrew canon than the Greek OT, yet they ignore his belief that Mary remain a virgin and that Jesus had no other brother or sister.

The Jews rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The New Testament was written primarily for the gentiles. The gentiles spoke Greek not Hebrew.

 

[mozart-250]

Like the title says, I’m curious why protestants say this in attacking the Catholic Church for “making up” doctrine. Thanks

Why…off the bat
(1) Hmm…the Bible does refer to siblings of Christ. I have no reason disregard the plain English meaning of the word to contort it to half-brothers or cousins or whatever.
(2) It is normal for married people to have sex and children. I have no reason to believe this was an abnormal marriage.

But to be honest, I don’t care about this issue that much either way. If you want to believe otherwise, fine with me. If hypothetically I were to change my mind and adopt a Catholic belief on this issue, I would not be excommunicated from my current church.

What I am curious about is what is so important here about Mary being virgin after the birth of Christ that it is equal in priority to the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Willma]

Like the title says, I’m curious why protestants say this in attacking the Catholic Church for “making up” doctrine. Thanks

i dont think its just Prots who think that, i have heard a history teacher say there were roomers about it. And as i recall a man in china had said we was his brother about 100years ago??

 

[jimmy85]

correct me if I am wrong but does not the word “brother” have other meanings in the bible besides blood brother, just like the term “father”

Yep as Mel said, the word “brother” means “cousin” in the jewish language.
Thats why Abraham called Lot his brother when he was his cousin.

 

[suupah]

Because they interpret the Bible as if it were written in the modern time rather than interpret Scripture in the time and the culture at the time. Many of Protestant Scholars fail to look that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for brother or sister. In the Gospels, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are his close relatives or cousins.

They could have used kinsmen but instead they write cousins as brother and sisters. Even in the OT, Lot is called brother by his uncle, Abraham.

Why was elizabeth called mary’s relative rather than sister?

 

[jonfan]

Matthew 23:8 (New International Version)

8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.

So they are were all Blood related? Ahem…

 

[flyersfan1088]

Why…off the bat
(1) Hmm…the Bible does refer to siblings of Christ. I have no reason disregard the plain English meaning of the word to contort it to half-brothers or cousins or whatever.
.

refer to post #13 and get back to me. Have you read any of the replies, or just the first one?

 

[JW10631]

Many Protestants think Jesus has blood brothers and sisters because of a lack of understanding what Scripture is really saying.

Saint Luke wrote his Gospel - and the Acts of the Apostles which were originally one book - in Greek.

The tenet of faith that Blessed Virgin Maria was, is, and always will be Virgin dates to the earliest of the Early Church Fathers. As the New Testament was not officially compiled until the year 381, oral teaching was the prevalent means of teaching the Faith.

As the Ark of the Covenant was so sacred that only the Levites could ever touch it, Maria is the New Ark - the New Covenant was conceived in her womb.

How much more holy is the Theotokos - the Mother of God - than the Ark of the Covenant!

God chose Maria to be the mother of His only Son. Maria accepted what God wanted. There is no way St. Joseph would have ever wanted to consider sexual relations with Maria.

 

[mozart-250]

refer to post #13 and get back to me. Have you read any of the replies, or just the first one?

Yes I’ve read the replies…

In post #13 I don’t see why the James and Joseph of one scripture are necessarily the same James and Joseph of another scripture. And I have never seen what Jesus giving his mother to John at the cross proves anyway.

Hey, its not that I think it is an airtight case either way. It’s just that when I read Scripture and apply Occam’s razor, I come away with the conclusions that simplest interpretation here is

• Brothers means…brothers…unless there is convincing evidence otherwise.
• Married people have sex and have children. I have no reason to believe why that is not the case here.

But I get the feeling that debating this issue is like debating fine points on the second coming of Christ. Interesting to debate and discuss but in the big scheme of things not all that important.

 

[JW10631]

You can apply Occam’s razor or whatever you call it.

It’s clear you do not understand the meanings of the words as they were understood when Jesus walked the earth.

Scripture by itself is insufficient as a basis for forming a Church. This is why mainline Protestantism is wasting away.
The Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentacostals are the last gasp of Protestantism and will probably fade away in a few centuries.

 

[mozart-250]

You can apply Occam’s razor or whatever you call it.

It’s clear you do not understand the meanings of the words as they were understood when Jesus walked the earth.

You mean to tell me the meaning of the word “brother” is now “close relative” and can not be brother?

Even if I grant your apologetic arguments, the best that you can logically conclude from them is that the word “brother” can be a close relative, not that it necessarily is. There are plenty of other places in Scripture where the word “brother” means…well…“brother”.

So the crux of my argument is that even if the word “brother” can be a close relative, you still have not demonstrated that in this case it is a close relative (and not brother). More important, you have not demonstrated why it is very important that one must believe that in this case it is “close relative”. Without this, I will continue to believe that the simplest interpretation here is that after the birth of Jesus…Mary and Joseph had sex (as is the norm in a marriage) and had other children (as also is the norm).

At the same time, I do not believe you are necessarily wrong to interpret this as “close relative” (to prove someone wrong in something is really quite difficult). And I really don’t care about this issue all that much to be honest. It just seems to me that you are bypassing the simplest reading of Scripture…for what reason I really dunno.

Scripture by itself is insufficient as a basis for forming a Church. This is why mainline Protestantism is wasting away.
The Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentacostals are the last gasp of Protestantism and will probably fade away in a few centuries.

Umm…this bragging really is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

(and mainline “Protestantism”…if it is wasting away…is wasting away because it has abandoned Scripture as a foundation and has replaced it with moral relativism)