Why do protestants think Jesus had brothers?

[Mannyfit75]

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

It is written for both believing Jews and Gentiles. Of course the Gentile spoke Greek. Greek then was as common as English today.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Because there are passages which point that way. And whatever the difficulties may be, their force - once ascertained - is not to be evaded.​

BTW, what the Reformers thought is interesting, but irrelevant to the question, “Does passage X having meaning Y ?” Protestants are not concerned simply to repeat what past interpreters have said, no matter how venerable or valuable; what matters is the meaning of the text, so far as this can be ascertained. The status of the Reformers is not that of authorities such as Saints Paul or John, whose utterances are not to be contradicted. Their position in Protestantism is more like that of Doctors of the Church among us: they profited the Church, have a claim on her gratitude, were greatly gifted, yet are not inerrant; so that their utterances are in need at times of correction & supplementation.

That’s just in case it is asked why Protestants today don’t echo the Reformers on topic X or Y or Z; for this issue does come up a good deal

Catholics seem to be as fond of dismissing the literal sense of a text when it collides with a cherished doctrine, as Protestants are said to be in their understanding of certain passages in John 6.

ISTM that we are terribly alike - even the sorts of objection we make against each other’s faith are the same

 

[LittleDeb]

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

I will try to give a short concise answer to this one if I may. Although my answers are seldom short.

There are a few reasons why it is important to believe that Jesus had no brothers. One of the important ones I can think of off hand is to reveal a deeper understanding of the book of Revelation.

In Revelation John is noted as seeing the “Ark of the Covenant” in the sky. This phrase is immediately followed by a detailed description of “The Woman.” Many people who think Jesus had brothers interpret the Ark of the Covenant in Revelation to be the “box” containing the commandments given to Moses. They think John is referring to a box in the sky. We, as Catholics, know that phrase to mean he saw Mary in the sky.

In using the words “Ark of the Covenant” John is showing his Jewish readers the importance of Mary in her role as Mother of God. The Ark of the Old Covenant was completely untouched. Those who dared touch it, died. Wherein the tablets were, nothing could be there afterwards, just as nothing had been there before. The Ark’s sole purpose was to carry the Covenant. John is emphasizing that a “mere” box contained the Old Covenant, but a human carried the New Covenant. That human also remained untouched both before and after she was a vessel of our Lord. The “box” of the Old Covenant was Holy ground. So too was the womb that held the New Covenant. John is showing not only the parallels of the Old and New, but the increase in holiness of the New.

Our late Holy Father in his writings on the Theology of the Body points out that Scripture begins and ends in a marriage. In the beginning is the marriage of Adam and Eve. They were to be the first example of holy marriage. Then they fell. In the end is the marriage of Christ and His Church. Is God implying that Christ and His Bride have sex and make babies? Of course not. He has foreshadowed a more holy marriage of Christ and His Church in the example of Jesus’ earthly family. Revelation is a very difficult book to just pick up, read and understand. There are so many real symbols in it. Who is the new Adam? Who is the new Eve? Who is the Woman clothed in the Sun? If the dragon is waging war “against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus,” is John just saying a few choice men who also came from her womb are being waged against?

The other reason that comes to mind on the importance of believing Jesus did not have other siblings is to not get stuck in “linear thinking.” Many converts I have met really wanted Mary to have had other children later. I discovered in long talks with them that they tended to think in a “before, now, and later,” frame of mind. They struggled with Mary’s perpetual virginity because of the “well he wasn’t in there anymore” kind of thinking. They also struggled with the idea that just because Jesus used to be tangible 2000 years ago that He wasn’t now. For Catholics and Protestants to dialogue we must remember that Catholic thinking is "everything is RIGHT NOW for God. There is no “yesterday” or “tomorrow” for Him. He is the Alpha and the Omega. Protestant thinking is more linear. They tend to remember a day they “got saved” and a day before that they weren’t saved.

For God, His mother is created by Him. He knew, though, from the very beginning that He would create her. He gave her free will to say no to being the God bearer, but He knew she would say yes. He is all-knowing. God doesn’t change courses mid-stream. He doesn’t “change His mind” with His creation. Everything is NOW for Him. If Mary was a virgin to carry Him in perfection then she still is. No one else is worthy to enter her womb.

As I said, not short, but I hope it helps give you a different perspective to ponder.

 

[mozart-250]

I will try to give a short concise answer to this one if I may. Although my answers are seldom short.

Thanks.

Before I spend much energy pondering an issue, I always like to get it straight in my head why this is important. Otherwise I could be pursuing trivial details. Anyway…

Good answer. This is my understanding on what you are saying.

First you mention the “Ark of the New Covenant”. I believe this was first coined by St. Iranaeus was it not.

I have no reason to oppose St. Iranaeus on this point. In fact my inclination (without having studied and pondered this much) is to agree with him. This does not mean that I believe Mary was the woman in Revelation. Like most things in Revelation, this is debatable and I just don’t know here.

But after the birth of Christ, Jesus of course was outside the womb. So Mary’s role as God Bearer (or the “Ark of the New Covenant” is it were) is complete. Thus she is free from any requirements that might be incumbent upon her as “Ark of the New Covenant”

Of course you anticipate this statement by mentioning linear versus non-linear thinking. Good for you. I think of it as God standing outside of time as opposed to functioning in time.

Of course God (having created time) is perfectly capable of doing things in time. And some things that God does in time are not permanent. A quick example might be that Jesus (as God) raised Lazarus from the dead. However, Lazarus later died.

So then the issue becomes why is it important for me to believe that this one thing that God did was permanent instead of temporal.

But I commend you for answering my question.

 

[LittleDeb]

Good answer. This is my understanding on what you are saying.

First you mention the “Ark of the New Covenant”. I believe this was first coined by St. Iranaeus was it not.

You are one up on me if you even know his name. Of course with my pregnant brain, I am having trouble remembering my own name!

But after the birth of Christ, Jesus of course was outside the womb. So Mary’s role as God Bearer (or the “Ark of the New Covenant” is it were) is complete. Thus she is free from any requirements that might be incumbent upon her as “Ark of the New Covenant”

Of course you anticipate this statement by mentioning linear versus non-linear thinking. Good for you. I think of it as God standing outside of time as opposed to functioning in time.

This part was heartening to read. I almost always use the phrase, “God is outside of time,” when speaking with Catholics. But most non-Catholic Christians look at me like I just grew a second head when I say it. It is good to know we are on the same page on this. Although I do avoid the use of the word, ‘standing’ because I don’t want to imply that God has a body. I get too literal there, probably a side effect of growing up around a lot of LDS (Mormons) and their belief that God has a body.

Of course God (having created time) is perfectly capable of doing things in time. And some things that God does in time are not permanent. A quick example might be that Jesus (as God) raised Lazarus from the dead. However, Lazarus later died.

So then the issue becomes why is it important for me to believe that this one thing that God did was permanent instead of temporal.

Now this is where we get to the heart of it. I think the point I raised in my previous post about the marriage of Mary and Joseph is important to ponder. Yes, Jesus did perform many temporal acts like raising Lazarus. But the point there is He did it with witnesses. If we really ponder marriage one thing does speak to me. We have witnesses.

Everything in Scripture, and everything in Tradition is important. Nothing is part of either one without God’s plan behind it. (Otherwise Scripture becomes, “just a book of history and/or fiction,” and Tradition just becomes “tradition.”) So why then is Mary’s marital state mentioned at all? We know her state of virginity is mentioned to show the fulfillment of prophecy. But how do you prove virginity? Where is the witness? Sure it is all well and good to say, “she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.” But only a select few were even given the early knowledge that He was King of Kings. It wasn’t until He was an adult that He is actually referred to as The Messiah. How do you witness a virgin birth?

I have noticed one thing we modern Christians do. We try to interpret with our modern eye. We see Mary’s life and apply our lens instead of the historical one. A married Jewish woman of child-bearing years in Mary’s time would have been in one of three states of being. She would be completely barren and childless, or surrounded by a passel of children, or dead because she died in childbirth. A woman with only one child would have stood out like a sore thumb. Everyone mentioned in Scripture with only one child shares a special calling from God. Who were these singleton children? Why are they noted? They were special. John the Baptist comes to mind.

Another point as to why it is important that this was eternal and not temporal is the foreshadowing I mentioned before. I asked about the marriage of Christ and His Bride the Church. If we just read Scripture without understanding Mary’s perpetual virginity we could come to the conclusion that all marriage is about is having sex and making babies. Wouldn’t that diminish the idea of the marriage of Christ and His Church? Where else in Scripture is a marriage presented in that way? Sex is for making babies. That is its primary purpose, (secondary being unity.) It wasn’t just that Mary didn’t have other children. It was that she remained untouched. St. Paul commends those who choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Joseph also remained untouched at least as soon as Jesus entered his life.

What does that foreshadow about the marriage of Christ and His Church? Yes, it is a holy and noble calling to marry and be parents. (I am a wife and mother.) But is there a higher calling? Is there a higher form of marriage? Is there the marriage of Christ and the Church? Where else do we see it if not in the marriage of Mary and Joseph? He was her protector and she was pure and spotless. The two became one in marriage. That sounds a lot like the description of Christ’s bride, The Church.

But I commend you for answering my question.

Thanks! This one was hard for me to accept as a life-long Catholic, so I was presenting some of the things I learned on that journey.