Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[Dorothea]

How long did the Apostle Paul preach the Gospel?

I'm not sure. My timelines and charts book for Church School the other teacher is borrowing. It has the timeline of Paul's whole life in there.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Three questions, IF I'm so permitted.....


1. What do you mean "anyTHING?" Did you mean anyONE? If you meant "thing," what "thing" do you mean?


2. It is your view that having a second child in some way lessens the quality of the first? If so, how? Why?


3. How does your asking a question substantiate a dogma? Let's say a Mormon asks a question: "If your father has a father, wouldn't God the Father have a father?" Does asking that question prove that God the Father does have a Father? Anyone can ask any question, it substantiates NOTHING except that anyone can ask anything. By your rubric, the Mormon must be stating a dogmatic fact of highest importance because he asked a question. I don't understand your epistemology here, would you please explain?



.

I do have a question for you, Josiah, if you don't mind.

How about my questions? Why are you too ignoring what is asked? Would you be so kind as to answer the 3 questions above? Thank you.

Does God not transform people's lives? Do people change quite dramatically in most instances? Going by the Saints' lives, Mary's life, etc. St. Mary of Egypt was a prostitute. She totally changed her life after her experience with God (actually I think it was after seeing the Theotokos on top of the Church's front doors, but my memory isn't too good...will have to look that us). I suppose she could've had her epiphany (or experience with God), and then decided to find a husband and live with him the rest of her life. But did she do that? No. She left men all together. She went to the desert for decades. She died after many years of ascetic struggles by herself and after the monk finds her, she gets to partake of His Body and Blood, and then she died peacefully. Now, does that make her strange because she didn't stop being a prostitute and find a man and marry him and be faithful for him and have children with him for the rest of her life on Earth?

Again, I don't understand your epistemology here. How does asking open ended questions substantiate dogmas? Again, using a common Mormon apologetic, "Does your father have a father? Then doesn't it follow that God the father has a father?" An open ended question. Does it prove ANYTHING? Only that anyone can ask questions. That's it. That's all. Unless you are agreeing that because the Mormon asks the question THEREFORE it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that God the Father has a Father, then I'm not understanding why you think others should accept line of reasoning? Could you please explain that? It's one of the questions you (too) ignored.



Again, the issue here is whether Jesus had siblings via Mary. Catholics and Orthodox have use the apologetic that Mary had no ____ ever, thus could not have had any other children. It's the sole application that the Catholic Catechism takes of the dogma (the position itself isn't a doctrine, but it is the sole application of the dogma). Well, all that does is beg the question of how we know that Mary never once had _____? But actually, it is an entirely moot apologetic and point. I think all over the age of 9 know that not every single act of ____ results in a child specifically mention in the Bible (or at all), so EVEN IF she had no other children, that's entirely moot to whether She ever had ____. EVEN IF Mary had no other children, it's MOOT to the issue of whether Mary had ___

Of course, the opposite apologetic IS relevant, because if Mary DID have other children, then she MUST have had ____ and the Catholic and Orthodox dogma would be heresy. Problem is, no one can substantiate that She did. Or didn't. It's important ONLY if it can be substantiate that She did have more children - then the CC and EO are heretical. But if She did not, that's entirely moot to the DOGMA of Mary Had No ____ Ever. Obviously.





.

 

[prodromos]

I have another common sense question. Why is it important whether she had just Jesus, or had a dozen others?

To put it crudely, in the Old Testament, anything which was sanctified for use in the temple for the worship of God, was never used for a "common" purpose again. They were only ever used in the temple for the purpose for which they were "set apart".

Mary was set apart by God for the purpose of carrying His Son in her womb and then nourishing Him on her breasts. Her womb had become the flesh equivalent of the Holy of Holies. Her betrothal to Joseph was solely to provide a safe context for her conceiving and giving birth while still a virgin. She would have been stoned to death as an adultress otherwise.

Childbearing was important to the Jews because they knew that the Messiah would be born from among them. Barrenness was considered as being cursed by God for this same reason. Mary, having given birth to the Messiah, had completely fulfilled the hopes of every Jewish mother and was blessed beyond imagining. In her birthing of Christ were many Old Testament prophecies brought to fruition. She was the pinnacle of God's creation, her purpose higher than that of any other man or woman save Christ, yet many would have us believe that after achieving/fulfilling all that, she would return to the life and purpose of an ordinary woman. Did any character in the Old Testament, having been set to a higher purpose, ever return to an ordinary life?

John

 

[rosenherman]

God likes poetry. Mary having lots of other children would not be poetic, but rather mundane.

A mundane Theotokos is bizarre.

There is no way, in God's green earth, that Mary could ever be mundane. I don't care if she had no other children, one, or a dozen. Mundane!? What a concept.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For those interested, I also brought this topic up to the Muslims on the NCR board the other day and was rather surprised at the responses so far

http://www.christianforums.com/t7410917/
Question for Muslims on Mary

 

[MrPolo]

For those interested, I also brought this topic up to the Muslims on the NCR board the other day and was rather surprised at the responses so far

http://www.christianforums.com/t7410917/
Question for Muslims on Mary

The one poster over thinks the Bible says Jesus had "siblings." She is wrong from the start.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The one poster over thinks the Bible says Jesus had "siblings." She is wrong from the start.

I want to ask the Jews their thoughts, but unfortunately they do not believe Jesus was their Savior/Redeemer.

But I could ask them their view on the mother of their future Messiah if she will have other children.

 

[nhisname]

Mark 6 :3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.

 

[narnia59]

Mark 6 :3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.

Isn't this the carpenter's son?

Must be true -- Jesus was the son of Joseph because that's what people thought.

 

[MrPolo]

Mark 6 :3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.

James and Joses (also translated Joseph, see footnote) 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 others have posted.

 

[Dorothea]

To put it crudely, in the Old Testament, anything which was sanctified for use in the temple for the worship of God, was never used for a "common" purpose again. They were only ever used in the temple for the purpose for which they were "set apart".

Mary was set apart by God for the purpose of carrying His Son in her womb and then nourishing Him on her breasts. Her womb had become the flesh equivalent of the Holy of Holies. Her betrothal to Joseph was solely to provide a safe context for her conceiving and giving birth while still a virgin. She would have been stoned to death as an adultress otherwise.

Childbearing was important to the Jews because they knew that the Messiah would be born from among them. Barrenness was considered as being cursed by God for this same reason. Mary, having given birth to the Messiah, had completely fulfilled the hopes of every Jewish mother and was blessed beyond imagining. In her birthing of Christ were many Old Testament prophecies brought to fruition. She was the pinnacle of God's creation, her purpose higher than that of any other man or woman save Christ, yet many would have us believe that after achieving/fulfilling all that, she would return to the life and purpose of an ordinary woman. Did any character in the Old Testament, having been set to a higher purpose, ever return to an ordinary life?

John

Excellent post.

 

[rosenherman]

The one poster over thinks the Bible says Jesus had "siblings." She is wrong from the start.

The Bible does say Jesus had siblings.

Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
John 2:12
John 7:3

If it contradicts The Bible, it's wrong and means precisely squat.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.




Originally Posted by Dorothea

Originally Posted by Josiah

Three questions, IF I'm so permitted.....


1. What do you mean "anyTHING?" Did you mean anyONE? If you meant "thing," what "thing" do you mean?


2. It is your view that having a second child in some way lessens the quality of the first? If so, how? Why?


3. How does your asking a question substantiate a dogma? Let's say a Mormon asks a question: "If your father has a father, wouldn't God the Father have a father?" Does asking that question prove that God the Father does have a Father? Anyone can ask any question, it substantiates NOTHING except that anyone can ask anything. By your rubric, the Mormon must be stating a dogmatic fact of highest importance because he asked a question. I don't understand your epistemology here, would you please explain?



.
​

I do have a question for you, Josiah, if you don't mind.
​

How about my questions? Why are you too ignoring what is asked? Would you be so kind as to answer the 3 questions above? Thank you.





Originally Posted by Dorothea

Does God not transform people's lives? Do people change quite dramatically in most instances? Going by the Saints' lives, Mary's life, etc. St. Mary of Egypt was a prostitute. She totally changed her life after her experience with God (actually I think it was after seeing the Theotokos on top of the Church's front doors, but my memory isn't too good...will have to look that us). I suppose she could've had her epiphany (or experience with God), and then decided to find a husband and live with him the rest of her life. But did she do that? No. She left men all together. She went to the desert for decades. She died after many years of ascetic struggles by herself and after the monk finds her, she gets to partake of His Body and Blood, and then she died peacefully. Now, does that make her strange because she didn't stop being a prostitute and find a man and marry him and be faithful for him and have children with him for the rest of her life on Earth?
​

Again, I don't understand your epistemology here. How does asking open ended questions substantiate dogmas? Again, using a common Mormon apologetic, "Does your father have a father? Then doesn't it follow that God the father has a father?" An open ended question. Does it prove ANYTHING? Only that anyone can ask questions. That's it. That's all. Unless you are agreeing that because the Mormon asks the question THEREFORE it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that God the Father has a Father, then I'm not understanding why you think others should accept line of reasoning? Could you please explain that? It's one of the questions you (too) ignored.



Again, the issue here is whether Jesus had siblings via Mary. Catholics and Orthodox have use the apologetic that Mary had no ____ ever, thus could not have had any other children. It's the sole application that the Catholic Catechism takes of the dogma (the position itself isn't a doctrine, but it is the sole application of the dogma). Well, all that does is beg the question of how we know that Mary never once had _____? But actually, it is an entirely moot apologetic and point. I think all over the age of 9 know that not every single act of ____ results in a child specifically mention in the Bible (or at all), so EVEN IF she had no other children, that's entirely moot to whether She ever had ____. EVEN IF Mary had no other children, it's MOOT to the issue of whether Mary had ___

Of course, the opposite apologetic IS relevant, because if Mary DID have other children, then she MUST have had ____ and the Catholic and Orthodox dogma would be heresy. Problem is, no one can substantiate that She did. Or didn't. It's important ONLY if it can be substantiate that She did have more children - then the CC and EO are heretical. But if She did not, that's entirely moot to the DOGMA of Mary Had No ____ Ever. Obviously.





.

 

[Thekla]

The Bible does say Jesus had siblings.

Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
John 2:12
John 7:3

If it contradicts The Bible, it's wrong and means precisely squat.

They use the term "adelphos".
The term has about 10 meanings; one of the meanings is sibling.
For example:
In the LXX (OT), Abraham is referred to as Lot's adelphos; Abraham was Lot's uncle. (There are other examples where it does not mean sibling).
In the NT, John states that Mary had an "adelphi" named Mary.


The term "adelphos" does not prove that Mary had other children.

 

[Mobiosity]

They use the term "adelphos".
The term has about 10 meanings; one of the meanings is sibling.
For example:
In the LXX (OT), Abraham is referred to as Lot's adelphos; Abraham was Lot's uncle.

and it was translated in our Bibles as such.

In the NT, John states that Mary had an "adelphi" named Mary.

Which means what, exactly? George Forman has several sons, all named George.

The term "adelphos" does not prove that Mary had other children.

Holy Spirit led them to use that word or they would have chosen whichever of the 9 other meanings Holy Spirit led them to choose. As He did with Abraham.

 

[lionroar0]

Holy Spirit led them to use that word or they would have chosen whichever of the 9 other meanings Holy Spirit led them to choose.

If Mary had other children then the Holy Spirit would have led the writers to use a word that would have said so.

 

[Mobiosity]

If Mary had other children then the Holy Spirit would have led the writers to use a word that would have said so.

He did, that is why they are called His brothers.

 

[MrPolo]

The Bible does say Jesus had siblings.

Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
John 2:12
John 7:3

If it contradicts The Bible, it's wrong and means precisely squat.

As Thekla said, the Greek word is not "siblings". Anyway, I think I showed in post 250 beyond reasonable doubt that the people called Jesus' "brothers" are not His uterine brothers.

 

[rosenherman]

As Thekla said, the Greek word is not "siblings". Anyway, I think I showed in post 250 beyond reasonable doubt that the people called Jesus' "brothers" are not His uterine brothers.

1) She said that it can be translated about 10 ways.

2) No, you didn't.

 

[MrPolo]

He did, that is why they are called His brothers.

Did you know Peter had 120 brothers?

Acts 1:15-16 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.​

The Greek word there (ἀδελφό&#962 for brethren is the exact same one used to refer to Jesus' "brothers" in Mark 6:3 and elsewhere....

Peter's father must have been some kind of sire.