Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[narnia59]

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.

And your NKJV has inserted personal opinion at the expense of the text. If you get a concordance or look at the actual Greek you will discover that it does not say "Joseph", it says "father".

Christ's father is God. Yet scripture also says that Joseph is his father. We know that this does not mean biological father. Yet when Scripture refers to the brothers of Jesus, you assume these have to be biological via Mary. You do not even consider the possibility they are children of Joseph yet not Mary's. You draw a conclusion that scripture does not.

 

[narnia59]

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".

You can use the same logic, but you're going to a place Scripture does not. It's very easy to define a word to have a limited use to fit your purpose, ignore any possibility to the contrary, and then use that to build a conclusion.

But your conclusion now means that if I were an Eqyptian who had an only one male child, he was spared during the passover. Does Scripture support that idea?

Christ did have brothers. Ancient tradition says these were the children of Joseph, a widower who married Mary. Society would have seen them every bit as much brothers of Jesus as they saw Joseph as his father. Common fatherhood in Scripture denoted brothers, regardless of how many mothers were involved. You also ignore the times Scripture refers to people as brothers when they clearly are related, but not actually brothers.

But nowhere does Scripture tell us that Mary gave birth to other children.

 

[Thekla]

"Until" does not prove a reversal of condition -- it refers only to the referenced time period (both dictionaries and 'grammars' may be consulted on this matter).

"Until" often denotes 'forever' in Greek usage.

The announcement is made during the period of betrothal, and refers to a future conception; Mary still asks "how ?". This is illogical. Her statement "I do not know a man" is given as condition without reference to time.

The term "adelphos" does not only mean sibling. It also means: half-sibling, cousin, household inhabitant, personal 'affinity', same country/region of origin,etc. In the OT (as mentioned before) it is used of an uncle. The term is really very general.

There Greek term for "husband/wife" is the same term as "betrothed/betrothed", "man/woman" (adult). Translators choose the way they translate the terms.

 

[narnia59]

"Until" does not prove a reversal of condition -- it refers only to the referenced time period (both dictionaries and 'grammars' may be consulted on this matter).

"Until" often denotes 'forever' in Greek usage.

The announcement is made during the period of betrothal, and refers to a future conception; Mary still asks "how ?". This is illogical. Her statement "I do not know a man" is given as condition without reference to time.

The term "adelphos" does not only mean sibling. It also means: half-sibling, cousin, household inhabitant, personal 'affinity', same country/region of origin,etc. In the OT (as mentioned before) it is used of an uncle. The term is really very general.

There Greek term for "husband/wife" is the same term as "betrothed/betrothed", "man/woman" (adult). Translators choose the way they translate the terms.

I wish I'd kept count of how many times you've tried to explain all of that.

Heaven knows, let's not consider the actual meanings of the words in the actual language they're written in from the actual time they're written.

 

[kiwimac]

Your insistence that Mary must be a perpetual virgin is simply dogma rather than anything else. There is no biblical justification for it.

 

[Breckmin]

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

I don't care about typos...because "deduction" corrects the induction.

There is NO reason for Mary to stay a virgin. The Holy Covenant of
marriage between Joseph and Mary means that the sexual relationship
is also holy and sanctioned by God.

ALL (100%) marriages which model the holy covenant of Christ and
the Church are holy in God's eyes. Mary was a virgin when given to
Joseph to be his wife. There is no reason to deny Joseph his rights
as her husband to engage in a holy relationship which is created
by God.

Bottom line: Sex is not dirty when it is within the holy covenant
of marriage and performed the way in which God intended.

 

[Thekla]

I don't care about typos...because "deduction" corrects the induction.

There is NO reason for Mary to stay a virgin. The Holy Covenant of
marriage between Joseph and Mary means that the sexual relationship
is also holy and sanctioned by God.

ALL (100%) marriages which model the holy covenant of Christ and
the Church are holy in God's eyes. Mary was a virgin when given to
Joseph to be his wife. There is no reason to deny Joseph his rights
as her husband to engage in a holy relationship which is created
by God.

Bottom line: Sex is not dirty when it is within the holy covenant
of marriage and performed the way in which God intended.

Where was the concept "sex is dirty" introduced into the discussion ?

How does this answer any of the points raised; this is non-responsive.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

There are no biblical scriptures that says Mary stayed a virgin her whole life. The bible tells us that Joseph did not know his wife "till" she brought forth her firstborn son, and the meaning is clear that they "knew" each other afterward. So if you are reading the context that word "til" makes it known that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus.

Scripture also says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and therefore I am going to trust the eyewitnesses that are given an account.

If you have proof that Mary stayed a virgin for life or that those "brothers and sisters" of Christ were not His siblings, I will gladly read the biblical verses, yes I mean biblical verses. But if your whole entire point is to tell us that Mary was a virgin for life and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were His "cousins" because that is what you were taught, then please don't bother, because if there is going to be a contradiction (even though you might not claim it to be a contradiction), I'll side with the word of God always.

 

[Thekla]

There are no biblical scriptures that says Mary stayed a virgin her whole life. The bible tells us that Joseph did not know his wife "till" she brought forth her firstborn son, and the meaning is clear that they "knew" each other afterward. So if you are reading the context that word "til" makes it known that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus.

Again, the insistence on a reversal of condition following the period of time covered by the preposition "until" is grammatically incorrect.

Further:

"The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on my right until (ews an) I place your enemies under your feet." Matt. 22:44

Will He be no longer at the right ?

"Behold, I am with you always until (ews tin) the end of the age." Matt 28:20

Will Christ no longer be with us after the end of time ?

"And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until (ews tis) the day of her death." 2 Samuel 6:23

Did she bear children after her death ?

Scripture also says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and therefore I am going to trust the eyewitnesses that are given an account.

The eyewitness did not provide any information on the precise relationship of the adelphos/adelphis; where a particular (among the many meanings) meaning is meant for this broad term, an additional description is given. There is none given in this case.

As the term "adelphos" can mean uncle/nephew (as used in the Bible), one could say with authority that these adelphos were uncles, for example. And, as Mary had a sister (adelphi) named Mary (according to the Gospel of John) one cannot read the word adelphos with "English meaning".

If you have proof that Mary stayed a virgin for life or that those "brothers and sisters" of Christ were not His siblings, I will gladly read the biblical verses, yes I mean biblical verses.

No Biblical proof has been provided that the adelphos were children born of Mary. No explanation has been provided for Mary's response to the announcement. No response has been given on the Biblical pattern of the younger son being the one preferred by God.

It cannot be Biblically shown that Mary and Joseph had any children.

But if your whole entire point is to tell us that Mary was a virgin for life and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were His "cousins" because that is what you were taught, then please don't bother, because if there is going to be a contradiction (even though you might not claim it to be a contradiction), I'll side with the word of God always.

Please provide conclusive Biblical evidence that the "adelphos" of Jesus were the children of Mary and Joseph.

Please provide an explanation for what the Holy Scripture records the betrothed Mary responds to the announcement of a future conception.

If the literal words of Holy Scripture are the final record for determining this matter, then it cannot be said with certainty that Mary had more than one Child, Jesus Christ.

 

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust.

 

[Thekla]

Heiferdust.

Can a more cogent description of your argument be provided?

 

[kiwimac]

Ah yes, says the church with no scriptural support for it's dogma about Mary of Nazareth. Face it, she and Joseph were married, sexually active and produced more than just one child.

 

[Thekla]

Ah yes, says the church with no scriptural support for it's dogma about Mary of Nazareth. Face it, she and Joseph were married, sexually active and produced more than just one child.

This is a statement of opinion; can you provide a supporting argument or evidence for your claim ?

 

[wayseer]

This is a statement of opinion; can you provide a supporting argument or evidence for your claim ?

Mark 3:31 - 35; 6:3. Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56. Luke 8:19-21. John 2:12, 7:3-5. Other references, Acts 12:17, 15:13-21, 21:17-26. Galatians 1:19, 2:1-12.

From memory I counted 4 brothers of Jesus, James, Jose, Judas and Simon and three unnamed sisters.

The other aspect which many forget is that no one can 'conclusively prove' that Mary did not have any children other than Jesus.

Given the social and cultural conditions of Palestine it would inconceivable that a woman would 'elect' to only have one child.

I know this destroys the cosy image of the perpetual virgin iconography we were taught in Sunday school - but we have to grow up one day.

 

[kiwimac]

Indeed.

 

[Thekla]

Mark 3:31 - 35; 6:3. Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56. Luke 8:19-21. John 2:12, 7:3-5. Other references, Acts 12:17, 15:13-21, 21:17-26. Galatians 1:19, 2:1-12.

From memory I counted 4 brothers of Jesus, James, Jose, Judas and Simon and three unnamed sisters.

The other aspect which many forget is that no one can 'conclusively prove' that Mary did not have any children other than Jesus.

Given the social and cultural conditions of Palestine it would inconceivable that a woman would 'elect' to only have one child.

I know this destroys the cosy image of the perpetual virgin iconography we were taught in Sunday school - but we have to grow up one day.

This skips the usage of the term "adelphos" in Greek and throughout the Old and New Testaments.

It also assumes that what one supposes is typical is necessarily particular in every case.

It ignores any close reading of the text, preferring instead a recourse to what one assumes to be so based on a modern secular 'understanding' of a different language, era and culture.

How can it be said that "no one can conclusively prove that Mary did not have any other children", and then make statements which have their basis on the claim that one has conclusively done so ?

(For example, "it is inconceivable that" - perhaps this is a matter of your being not able to conceive of what you do not assume to be so.)

 

[Thekla]

Indeed.

And your evidence is ... ?

 

[MrPolo]

Mark 3:31 - 35; 6:3. Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56. Luke 8:19-21. John 2:12, 7:3-5. Other references, Acts 12:17, 15:13-21, 21:17-26. Galatians 1:19, 2:1-12.

From memory I counted 4 brothers of Jesus, James, Jose, Judas and Simon and three unnamed sisters.

The other aspect which many forget is that no one can 'conclusively prove' that Mary did not have any children other than Jesus.

Given the social and cultural conditions of Palestine it would inconceivable that a woman would 'elect' to only have one child.

I know this destroys the cosy image of the perpetual virgin iconography we were taught in Sunday school - but we have to grow up one day.

James and Joses are not Jesus' brothers if we compare passages. Despite that, they are called His brothers in Matthew 13:55.

It is apparent if you compare Mt. 13:55 with Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25, you will see that James and Joseph are quite likely the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas.

A closer look:

Here are two accounts of the Crucifixion scene:

Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.​

You have 3 Marys at the Crucifixion. Mark doesn't mention Mary the mother of Jesus at that point, but tells us that a Mary who is the mother of James and Joses is there. These men were called the "brothers" of Jesus in Mk 6:3 and elsewhere. So which Mary are they the sons of? Mark again refers to this woman as "Mary the mother of Joses" in Mark 15:47.

If one wants to insist that Joses is Jesus' brother, one has to argue in favor of 2 minimally likely scenarios, and at best admit Scripture is silent. The first argument would be that Mark refers to Jesus' mother as Mary the mother of Joses as the way to identify the woman who gave birth to the Savior. Or second, one has to say at the same time there were two women at the Cross named Mary with sons named James and Joses---and also claim that even though there were 2 women with sons named James and Joses, Mark apparently didn't think it would be confusing to identify only one of them as such!

Plus the repeated legitimate Greek of adelphos that poor Thekla has posted and been ignored so many times. You have the typology of Mary as the Ark which was not to be touched, the closed gate of Ezekiel 44, the ECFs which interpret these passages and others that she remained a virgin, etc... There's also the historical tradition that she did not have children. The argument is not from silence but a bounty of evidence, not to mention the authority of the Church identifying this Tradition definitively at the Lateran Council in 649.

 

[kiwimac]

Plus the repeated legitimate Greek of adelphos that poor Thekla has posted and been ignored so many times. You have the typology of Mary as the Ark which was not to be touched, the closed gate of Ezekiel 44, the ECFs which interpret these passages and others that she remained a virgin, etc... There's also the historical tradition that she did not have children. The argument is not from silence but a bounty of evidence, not to mention the authority of the Church identifying this Tradition definitively at the Lateran Council in 649.

Thekla and you quote the Greek and ignore the Hebrew culture of the time which would have looked askance at anyone capable of more than one child who did not have them. Moreover the Judaic religion believes that sex between husband and wife is a good thing to be rejoiced in and would expect a married couple to joyfully and lovingly make love whenever they could.

Mary is not the Ark, she is not a closed gate and frankly I reject the authority of the RCC and EO churches in this and other areas and the decisions of the Lateran council are those made out of the culture of the time and in ignorance of the Hebrew culture of 1st century Palestine.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla and you quote the Greek and ignore the Hebrew culture of the time which would have looked askance at anyone capable of more than one child who did not have them. Moreover the Judaic religion believes that sex between husband and wife is a good thing to be rejoiced in and would expect a married couple to joyfully and lovingly make love whenever they could.

Christianity like Judaism understands the significance of the sexual relationship in marriage (see St. John the Chrysostom, for ex.). Christianity also understands the significance of abstinence within marriage (see St. Paul, for ex.).

Do you mean to suggest that it was required of all Jewish and Christian couples in that era to engage in sexual relations ? (A law, in Athens: 3x per month minimum).

Is it also possible that there were some who were not like everyone else; that the particular relationship of God to the particular person might indeed be fulfilled in a manner other than a sociological statistic ?

Then also, it must first be proven that Joseph and Mary married (which has not been done yet here).

Mary is not the Ark, she is not a closed gate and frankly I reject the authority of the RCC and EO churches in this and other areas and the decisions of the Lateran council are those made out of the culture of the time and in ignorance of the Hebrew culture of 1st century Palestine.

This is a sweeping unsupported generalization; you are of course welcome to your opinion, but it is unsupported.