Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[Thekla]

Just curious; how many of the first earth-born of a father was considered preferred by God ? Not Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Joseph, David, Jacob, were the eldest ... can anyone think of more preferred younger sons ?

Or preferred elder sons ?

 

[Breckmin]

And Scripture also says Joseph is his father, so do you trust and believe that as well?

But scripture teaches that Joseph had not "known" Mary yet...the
angel told Mary it was the Holy Spirit and she would conceive...
However, there are NO verses which state that Jesus was Mary's ONLY
offspring. If scripture did say this, then we wouldn't be having such
a debate among Protestants.

And Hebrews refers to Christ as God's firstborn. Using your logic, God also had other children besides Jesus.

prOtotokos was often used as a military term to apply to rank and not
just chronology of birth.

There are clearly other scriptures such as "only begotten from the
Father" and "only begotten Son" which would specify that Jesus was
the only time God became a man.

God does have adopted children...adopted through the price of blood...
but this does not mean that you can equate the inductions you have
made as being congruous.

 

[Thekla]

(And Paul refers to Christ as the "second Adam".)

 

[Breckmin]

"First point -- as far as the Jews were concerned, would any children of Joseph's not have been Jesus' brothers as well? Without Scripture specifically saying they were born of Mary, how can people explicitly state they are hers? Scripture does not.

What exactly does the Flavius Josephus citation say? I've forgotten.

 

[Thekla]

And Celsus (Alethes Logos, 2nd c.) ?
Also, the Babylonian Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu (at least as far as I know) indicate Mary/Miriam and her son (singular) being turned out by Joseph (or the equivalent) for adultery (or similar charge). The Celsus work is likely the oldest; why wouldn't these detractors mention other children of Mary (especially when attempting to demonstrate that Jesus was illegitimate and Mary of questionable character) ?

 

[Breckmin]

1. IMHO, it is possible for a couple to have had an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies without having children resulting from such specifically mentioned in the Bible (or even have children AT ALL - mentioned in the Bible or not). Perhaps you fundamentally disagree. Why, I know a couple that has no children and yet they specificly told me they "tried for years" (I take that to mean each is not a perpetual virgin). So, I don't agree with your argument that if other children of Mary are not specificly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. Nor does it confirm to me that such an instance of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the wife (but not husband) impure - as is given as the reason for the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Catholics and Orthodox.

2. If you want to discuss the CONFESSIONS of the Lutheran Church, you might want to take that to the Lutheran forum. It is well known that Luther and some of the Lutheran Church Fathers embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - at least early in their lives. We all know that. However, was it dogma (the Lutheran Confessions don't make this uniquely Catholic distinctions between various levels of truth; the Confessions are just that - not necessarily dogmas)? As I've explained repeatedly before (to no avail), to see, we must determine two things: Is it specifically taught as something that must be believed? Simply using a common TITLE for Mary or expressing a faith is not the same as declaring dogma - not in ANY denomination. Secondly, how was the view treated? Luther was surrounded by Lutheran pastors, teachers and theologians that did NOT embrace the view of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Where they excommunicated for that? Did Luther condemn them as heretics? Was there DIFFERENT pious opinion permitted, even welcomed? Or were they condemned, excommunicated and burned at the stake (in not infrequent style of the RCC in those days)? Several times, I've shared with you that Protestants embrace something we call pious opinion. These are views (perhaps even very passionate ones) that are NEITHER substantiated or denied by Scripture BUT have solid, historic, ECUMENICAL embrace. One is permitted to embrace and teach such (even in a document later made a part of the Book of Concord), but one is not bound to such, one may do as I do and have no opinion on it or one may disagree with it and not embrace it. SCRIPTURE is our rule. We've been all over this, um, how many times?????



Since you'd rather discuss the RCC DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER, then I'd repeat AGAIN my questions to and requests of you (ignored for longer than I can remember, in numerous threads, over many, many months):

1. Please show us how the dogmatic view that Our Lady never once had sex is a STRONGER and OLDER position in the Bible (or even your own single denomination's "tradition") than is the dogmatic position of 49,997 denominations - SILENCE?

2. Please explain from Scripture (or even your own single denomination's own earliest "tradition") how it is that a single, loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within Marriage makes the WIFE impure and defiled (but not the husband) so that if Mary even once shared such, she'd be impure?

3. Please explain why there this obsession on the part of your denomination (to the level of DOGMA) on the "bedroom activities" of this holy couple after Jesus was born? Why is it so very critical to our salvation and to Jesus being our Savior? Why is it that a single instance of mutual, loving, respectful sharing of intimacies say years after Jesus was born would make our salvation moot and Jesus not our Savior; how would it so horribly defile not only Mary but Jesus? Of course, NORMALLY, the "bedroom activities" of a married couple is regarded as private and respected, but here it is shouted, broadcast in the loudest, boldest, possible way, throughout all the world and to all generations as a matter of highest importance to US: "MARY AND JOSEPH HAD MARITAL SEX NOT ONCE!!!" Why?

The marriage bed is Holy. There is no reason for Mary not to enjoy
the holy covenant of marriage with her husband.

It is NOT a sin for Joseph and Mary to have relations that result
in other children.

It is all based on weak induction... clearly the result of a growing
trend after the middle of the Fourth Century.

To claim that sex somehow defiles Mary...is one word -

illogical.

 

[Breckmin]

(And Paul refers to Christ as the "second Adam".)

Yet we know that Jesus (pre-Incarnate) created Adam...

 

[Thekla]

Yet we know that Jesus (pre-Incarnate) created Adam...

Yes, and in this case (as in the cases I listed above), it is the younger who is preferred ...

Can you add to the list of preferred younger brothers, or start the list of preferred older brothers ?

Its started (preferred younger brothers list) above. #141

 

[Thekla]

What exactly does the Flavius Josephus citation say? I've forgotten.

What is the term he uses, what is its range of meaning, and does he narrow the term to explicitly demonstrate a single definition ?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And Scripture also says Joseph is his father, so do you trust and believe that as well?

And Hebrews refers to Christ as God's firstborn. Using your logic, God also had other children besides Jesus.

The bible never said Joseph was Jesus' father.
Secondly, those verses clearly said that Jesus was Mary's firstborn. So using the logic that is given in the bible works. Because no where else in scripture are we told that Mary would stay a virgin forever.

As for the bit about God, I think you are taking it a little to far.
If you go back into the Old Testament, you will see the word "firstborn" was attributed to the first born child of the parent, and if I am not mistaken, almost every time "firstborn" was mentioned, that "firstborn" had brothers or sisters, I don't think there were any only child, considered first born. I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain of that.

Now, when you put God in this whole situation, everything is messed up because not only does He call Christ His "firstborn", He calls the people of Israel, His "firstborn". So, when God relates something being "firstborn" I'm not so sure you can use the same logic.

EDIT: expanded my explanation.

 

[Breckmin]

Yes, and in this case (as in the cases I listed above), it is the younger who is preferred ...

I do not believe that Jesus is younger than Adam in an existence sense.

I believe the pre-Incarnate Christ created Adam.

As for a list of older and younger brothers...

"does it matter?"

What can we really conclude from such induction? We would be
very open to error.

 

[Thekla]

The bible never said Joseph was Jesus' father.
Secondly, those verses clearly said that Jesus was Mary's firstborn. So using the logic that is given in the bible works. Because no where else in scripture are we told that Mary would stay a virgin forever.

In Luke, for example, the account when Jesus was 12; His mother refers to Joseph as "father" (though, iirc, not the only passage ).

Firstborn indicates the one who opens the womb, without regard for subsequent births.

 

[narnia59]

The bible never said Joseph was Jesus' father.

Yes it does. Luke 2:33
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

In Luke, for example, the account when Jesus was 12; His mother refers to Joseph as "father" (though, iirc, not the only passage ).

Firstborn indicates the one who opens the womb, without regard for subsequent births.

The scripture makes it clear that God was Christ's father and Christ restates that in Luke 2:48-50

So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, your father and I have sought You anxiously." And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" But they did not understand the statement which he spoke to them.​

Jesus corrects Mary telling her that He was doing His Father's business. And seeing as the last verse tells us that they didn't understand this, it was obvious that He was not speaking about tending to Joseph's business, otherwise, Joseph would have understood.

Though I am not so sure that, in scripture, that calling one "firstborn" and having no other siblings is something in see in scripture, the fact that Christ is called Mary's firstborn and then it is brought out that He has brothers and sisters, I can only conclude that Jesus was a big brother.

 

[Thekla]

I do not believe that Jesus is younger than Adam in an existence sense.

I believe the pre-Incarnate Christ created Adam.

As for a list of older and younger brothers...

"does it matter?"

What can we really conclude from such induction? We would be
very open to error.

Of course He is not "younger" in existence ... but Adam was the first creation of humans.

If we're going to examine this matter, why not examine it ?

I realize theory on Hellenistic Greek tenses have changed in the past few centuries (time vs. condition) which muddies Mary's statement. On the other hand, it cannot be escaped that she, while betrothed, asks "how" to the announcement of a future conception.

There is no explicit descriptive identifying the "adelphos" as children born of Mary.

Detractors afaik identify Mary as having one son only.

And there is a clear pattern of younger brothers being spiritually preferred by God.

If you can, without explicit evidence, "induce" other children born of Mary, why not appeal to typos, an interpretive method utilized by Paul ?

 

[narnia59]

The bible never said Joseph was Jesus' father.
Secondly, those verses clearly said that Jesus was Mary's firstborn. So using the logic that is given in the bible works. Because no where else in scripture are we told that Mary would stay a virgin forever.

As for the bit about God, I think you are taking it a little to far.
If you go back into the Old Testament, you will see the word "firstborn" was attributed to the first born child of the parent, and if I am not mistaken, almost every time "firstborn" was mentioned, that "firstborn" had brothers or sisters, I don't think there were any only child, considered first born. I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain of that.

Now, when you put God in this whole situation, everything is messed up because not only does He call Christ His "firstborn", He calls the people of Israel, His "firstborn". So, when God relates something being "firstborn" I'm not so sure you can use the same logic.

EDIT: expanded my explanation.

And nowhere else are we told she had other children. So why do those who profess to go by scripture alone profess this?

So if I was an Egyptian during the passover, if I had an only child he was not killed by the angel of death, because he was not my firstborn?

And when God tells the Israelites to offer the firstborn of their flock, they are to wait to see if another is born, because until that occurs, the first born is not the firstborn? Or when he says to offer the firstborn male, you only have to do so if another male is born?

I think your problem is not understanding when God uses the term firstborn, he means exactly that -- the first born. That position is not dependent on there being a second born.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes it does. Luke 2:33
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Interesting my NKJV says
"And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.

But regardless, keep reading to verses 49, when Christ Himself, tells us who His Father is.

Maybe I should make a correction, Christ always announces that His Father is God. And the gospels reminds us that Christ was born of the Spirit.

 

[Thekla]

The scripture makes it clear that God was Christ's father and Christ restates that in Luke 2:48-50

So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, your father and I have sought You anxiously." And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" But they did not understand the statement which he spoke to them.​

Jesus corrects Mary telling her that He was doing His Father's business. And seeing as the last verse tells us that they didn't understand this, it was obvious that He was not speaking about tending to Joseph's business, otherwise, Joseph would have understood.

Though I am not so sure that, in scripture, that calling one "firstborn" and having no other siblings is something in see in scripture, the fact that Christ is called Mary's firstborn and then it is brought out that He has brothers and sisters, I can only conclude that Jesus was a big brother.

Still, although we both know Christ's actual father, Joseph was His earthly protector and thus has the role of earthly father. The point being, the term "father" is used in reference to Joseph.

Firstborn is used throughout the OT -- the firstborn is to be dedicated to God. It is a technical term, not an ordinal term.

The word adelphos is also used to refer to the relationship between Lot and Abraham (Lot's uncle), between Herod and his "brother" (half brothers) etc. In Greek it has many meanings, not just sibling. When a specific meaning is meant, an adjective or descriptive is added to "adelphos" (as in the Laws of Plato).

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And nowhere else are we told she had other children. So why do those who profess to go by scripture alone profess this?

So if I was an Egyptian during the passover, if I had an only child he was not killed by the angel of death, because he was not my firstborn?

And when God tells the Israelites to offer the firstborn of their flock, they are to wait to see if another is born, because until that occurs, the first born is not the firstborn? Or when he says to offer the firstborn male, you only have to do so if another male is born?

I think your problem is not understanding when God uses the term firstborn, he means exactly that -- the first born. That position is not dependent on there being a second born.

The fact is, the bible tells us that Jesus was Mary's firstborn, plus it tells us that He had brothers and sisters and they name the brothers. I don't know of any other time the bible give a relationship of a child being "firstborn" and that child not having a sibling. I am not going to argue over flocks or grains or anything for that matter because I am not going to compare humans to animals. God called Israelites His "firstborn" should I think that a contradiction from Him calling Christ "firstborn"? No, because the context is different.

And in the bible when the scripture is speaking of a relationship between parent and child and call them "firstborn" almost always, that child end up having sibling or two. I don't know any one specifically off the top of my head that is called "firstborn' but does not have sibling--and I can use that same logic when it comes to Christ.

Matthew 12:47
Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hands toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

And while I understand that Christ had a meaning behind what He was saying, please recall that He did not say "I do not have brothers".

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Still, although we both know Christ's actual father, Joseph was His earthly protector and thus has the role of earthly father. The point being, the term "father" is used in reference to Joseph.

Firstborn is used throughout the OT -- the firstborn is to be dedicated to God. It is a technical term, not an ordinal term.

The word adelphos is also used to refer to the relationship between Lot and Abraham (Lot's uncle), between Herod and his "brother" (half brothers) etc. In Greek it has many meanings, not just sibling. When a specific meaning is meant, an adjective or descriptive is added to "adelphos" (as in the Laws of Plato).

I understand.
I also understand that when the term "firstborn" is used in relation to a parent and a child, in scripture, that child almost always, if not always, have a sibling or siblings.

Please note, that by Christ having brothers and sisters, it in no way, contradicts a prophesy in scripture. No where does it tell us that Mary stayed a virgin forever and no where does it tell us that the Messiah would be an only child...only that the Messiah would come out of a virgin, which He did because Mary was with child and after His birth she "knew" Joseph.

Matthew 1:24-25
"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

As for the word "adelphos", I understand that also. But you understand the meaning based on the context. And in the context of both Matthew and Mark, each time, it deals with a sibling because the verses around them help exclude the idea that they are speaking about the disciples.