- Aug 7, 2016
- 3,762
- 1,943
- 100
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters ?When we carefully consider the
Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so
clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only
major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion.
Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary
continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more
children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows
that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they
did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.
With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would anyone
attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple as the word
'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman
Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix,
and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess that the scripture is correct and
Mary had other children, it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary.
Therefore, a way had to be devised which would justify this teaching. It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine which is not based on solid scripture.
Number two, Roman catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call "technicalities" in the Greek to try and give the
appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows
that sound Bible hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then
search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word, and then
follows it to it's conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word which says
or even implies that Mary had no other Children, that starting conclusion is
based on man's thoughts, not God's.
What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word
[adelphos], that is translated brethren, and attempted to make it's
meaning vague and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple
of meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ,
Brethren/Kin), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we are
dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this
word in it's context could mean cousins. As for the spurious claim that it means
brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the passages precludes it. Moreover,
even without the word "brethren" we can see clearly that Mary had other
children. To simply "ignore" these things would be handling the scriptures
tortuously. The best way to find an answer of what is true is to go right to the
Scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scriptures (the Word of
God) are the ultimate Authority. Note carefully that you would have to
"tortuously" wrest the scriptures to even begin to make them imply Mary didn't
have other children. for example...
Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19). Of the brothers, there seem to have been four who are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (see Mark 6:3). Matthew and Mark mention the sisters, but neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:56, "His sisters, are they not all with us?"), there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently married, and resident at Nazareth. These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all until after the Lord began His ministry and are first mentioned as going with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John 2:12). It is in dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least until the very end of His ministry (John 7:3-10). Most say that they were made believers through His resurrection, as they appear in company with the Apostles (Acts 1:14).
Quasar92
Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so
clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only
major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion.
Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary
continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more
children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows
that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they
did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.
With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would anyone
attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple as the word
'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly contradict Roman
Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual virgin, Co-Redemptrix,
and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess that the scripture is correct and
Mary had other children, it would destroy their well oiled myths about Mary.
Therefore, a way had to be devised which would justify this teaching. It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine which is not based on solid scripture.
Number two, Roman catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call "technicalities" in the Greek to try and give the
appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows
that sound Bible hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then
search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word, and then
follows it to it's conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word which says
or even implies that Mary had no other Children, that starting conclusion is
based on man's thoughts, not God's.
What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word
[adelphos], that is translated brethren, and attempted to make it's
meaning vague and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple
of meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ,
Brethren/Kin), it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we are
dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim that this
word in it's context could mean cousins. As for the spurious claim that it means
brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the passages precludes it. Moreover,
even without the word "brethren" we can see clearly that Mary had other
children. To simply "ignore" these things would be handling the scriptures
tortuously. The best way to find an answer of what is true is to go right to the
Scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scriptures (the Word of
God) are the ultimate Authority. Note carefully that you would have to
"tortuously" wrest the scriptures to even begin to make them imply Mary didn't
have other children. for example...
Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19). Of the brothers, there seem to have been four who are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (see Mark 6:3). Matthew and Mark mention the sisters, but neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:56, "His sisters, are they not all with us?"), there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently married, and resident at Nazareth. These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all until after the Lord began His ministry and are first mentioned as going with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John 2:12). It is in dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least until the very end of His ministry (John 7:3-10). Most say that they were made believers through His resurrection, as they appear in company with the Apostles (Acts 1:14).
Quasar92
Last edited:
