Brother and sisters, oh my!

[bbbbbbb]

One of the truly startling things to me when I first read the Bible was the statement that Jesus Christ had physical brothers and sisters. Technically, we might call them half-brothers and half-sisters considering that they did not share the same father as Jesus. For those of us here who are unfamiliar with these passages, they are as follow:

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers." And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Matthew 13:54-56 And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Mark 3:31-35 And His mother and His brothers arrived, standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. And a multitude was sitting arouond Him and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." And answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers." And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Mark 6:2,3 And when the Sabbath had come He began to teach in their synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished. saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisteres here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Luke 8:19-21 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside wishing to see You." But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

The fact that our Lord had brothers and sisters should prove as no surprise to a Christian. However, certain traditional Christian denominations such as the RCC and the EOC hold rigorously to the view that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin throughout her earthly pilgrimage and remains a perpetual virgin, in every physical sense of that word, in heaven. So, what are we to make of this apparent contradiction? I am acquainted with the following possibilities and would entertain others, as well:

1. The texts are accurate in their translation and in their original writing and Mary begat brothers (at least four who were named in two of the texts) and sisters following the birth of Jesus. These were not virgin births as Joseph is named as their father, so that Mary was the mother of a typical -sizedfamily of the day.

2. These were the children of Joseph and not Mary, despite what the text says, and, therefore, were considered to be the siblings of Jesus. Joseph either divorced Mary and remarried in order to accomplish this feat, or he begat them illegitimately. In either case, Joseph violated the express commandment of God concerning the sanctity of marriage.

3. These were not the actual siblings of Jesus Christ, but were his cousins, because the Greek word could also be translated as a cousin. The difficulty with this view is that the same words are very consistently translated everywhere else in the New Testament as brother and sisters. To translate them as cousins here is absurd, even as translating these words as cousins in all of the occurences is absurd. You would have Jesus calling his followers his cousins and not his brothers and sisters. Who knows of any religious order of cousins of Jesus and not sisters and brothers? All of the translations of these passages are consistent and none translate them as being mere cousins.

4. The references to His brothers and sisters is metaphorical, meaning, rather His disciples. Again, this makes nonsense of the passages. You have Jesus standing inside, addressing His disciples. Then along come some disciples who happen to be named Mary and James and Joses (or Joseph) and Judas and Simon and the disciples tell Jesus that his disciples are outside seeking to speak to Him and He turns to His disciples and tells them that His disciples are His disciples.

The problem here is really not that of the text, but of the extrabiblical dogma invented about the perpetual virginity of Mary. The RCC has gone so far as to paint themselves firmly into a corner over it so that if one does not believe, and chooses to believe the plain teaching of the Bible, instead, one is a heretic destined for an eternity in hell. This act was done in 1950 when the Pope made an ex-cathedra statement making this, and three other Marian dogmas to be infallible dogma.

So, what are we to do with these troublesome brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

 

[Qoheleth]

The fact that our Lord had brothers and sisters should prove as no surprise to a Christian. However, certain traditional Christian denominations such as the RCC and the EOC hold rigorously to the view that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin throughout her earthly pilgrimage and remains a perpetual virgin, in every physical sense of that word, in heaven.

And you may include the following (just for the record)...


[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]The Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular. For 1700 years the virtual unanimous teaching and belief of all Christians was that Mary was perpetually virgin.
      [*]In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}
      [*]The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).
      [*]Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }
      [*][But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands. {J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]Martin Luther[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
      [*]Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
      [*]A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
      [*]Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
      [*]Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]John Calvin[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
      [*][On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
      [*]Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]Huldreich Zwingli[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
      [*]'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
      [*]Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon titled: 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76}
      [*]I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]Heinrich Bullinger[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
      [*]The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*]John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)[/FONT]
   1. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*]I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495} (OLIC-Program notes)[/FONT]

Q

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And you may include the following (just for the record)...


[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary[/FONT]

1. The opening post says NOTHING about Mary's virginity or the 7th century Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's about siblings, not her sex life.


2. Even if 50 theologians said something, that still would not mean that it's true. Even if they were ALL Protestants. Shared opinions is not substantiation for the opinion. There are MANY that believe in alien abductions - it doesn't make such dogma.


3. While I agree that the most obvious and likely interpretation of the several texts is that these were "blood siblings" of Jesus - IMHO it must be admitted that such is not the only textually possible interpretation. Thus, while I PERSONALLY agree with the opening poster, I do not support any DOGMA of "Jesus Had Sibs." But then, there is no denomination known to me that has or ever has had such a dogma.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you, CJ, for your accurate summary of my opening post. I agree that, having read Post #2, there was absolutely no discussion within the quotations given concerning the biblical texts I posted. My interest, frankly, is not a discussion of who believed what and when. If so, I would have posted this on the Christian History forum. My interest is really on attaining an accurate understanding of these texts which have proven to be problematic to many.

 

[Trento]

One of the truly startling things to me when I first read the Bible was the statement that Jesus Christ had physical brothers and sisters. Technically, we might call them half-brothers and half-sisters considering that they did not share the same father as Jesus. For those of us here who are unfamiliar with these passages, they are as follow:

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers." And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Matthew 13:54-56 And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Mark 3:31-35 And His mother and His brothers arrived, standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. And a multitude was sitting arouond Him and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." And answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers." And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Mark 6:2,3 And when the Sabbath had come He began to teach in their synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished. saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisteres here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Luke 8:19-21 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside wishing to see You." But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

The fact that our Lord had brothers and sisters should prove as no surprise to a Christian. However, certain traditional Christian denominations such as the RCC and the EOC hold rigorously to the view that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin throughout her earthly pilgrimage and remains a perpetual virgin, in every physical sense of that word, in heaven. So, what are we to make of this apparent contradiction? I am acquainted with the following possibilities and would entertain others, as well:

1. The texts are accurate in their translation and in their original writing and Mary begat brothers (at least four who were named in two of the texts) and sisters following the birth of Jesus. These were not virgin births as Joseph is named as their father, so that Mary was the mother of a typical -sizedfamily of the day.

2. These were the children of Joseph and not Mary, despite what the text says, and, therefore, were considered to be the siblings of Jesus. Joseph either divorced Mary and remarried in order to accomplish this feat, or he begat them illegitimately. In either case, Joseph violated the express commandment of God concerning the sanctity of marriage.

3. These were not the actual siblings of Jesus Christ, but were his cousins, because the Greek word could also be translated as a cousin. The difficulty with this view is that the same words are very consistently translated everywhere else in the New Testament as brother and sisters. To translate them as cousins here is absurd, even as translating these words as cousins in all of the occurences is absurd. You would have Jesus calling his followers his cousins and not his brothers and sisters. Who knows of any religious order of cousins of Jesus and not sisters and brothers? All of the translations of these passages are consistent and none translate them as being mere cousins.

4. The references to His brothers and sisters is metaphorical, meaning, rather His disciples. Again, this makes nonsense of the passages. You have Jesus standing inside, addressing His disciples. Then along come some disciples who happen to be named Mary and James and Joses (or Joseph) and Judas and Simon and the disciples tell Jesus that his disciples are outside seeking to speak to Him and He turns to His disciples and tells them that His disciples are His disciples.

The problem here is really not that of the text, but of the extrabiblical dogma invented about the perpetual virginity of Mary. The RCC has gone so far as to paint themselves firmly into a corner over it so that if one does not believe, and chooses to believe the plain teaching of the Bible, instead, one is a heretic destined for an eternity in hell. This act was done in 1950 when the Pope made an ex-cathedra statement making this, and three other Marian dogmas to be infallible dogma.

So, what are we to do with these troublesome brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

The denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary was a heresy made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church. My favorite reply to Helvidius was made by the one man who surely knew the true context of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Jerome. Yes, the very same Jerome who translated the Bible from Greek and knew the meaning of adelphos. Jerome's Against Helvidius is the classic apologetic for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Its a shame that more Christians have not read it. Our brother doesn't even mention Jerome in his apologetic for the heresy.

However, Jerome was not alone and apologies were written by: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); and Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444).

So how do we as modern day Christians follow Jerome, the early Church fathers, and the Reformers in responding to those mis-informed brothers and sisters (adelphos) that have rediscovered the error of Helvidius and now embrace a dangerous heresy? Bible believing Christians, knowing the inerrency of scripture, should respond with charity and kindness by focusing on these main points:

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture?

In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27.

• When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
  John 19:26-27

Jesus, the perfect Jewish son and fulfiller of the Law of Moses, would not have violated Jewish law by giving his mother over to the care of John if Mary had any other children. You may have overlooked John 19:26-27 or not connected the passage with Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 since they are all in different books.


Many modern Christians in their zeal to disprove Catholicism and Orthodoxy are embracing dangerous heresies that our early Church fathers fought hard to extinguish. Christians must be careful to learn the history of Christianity and what doctrines have always been held by Christians. There are numerous collections of non-canonical writings by the earliest Christians available to us

 

[Thekla]

the Aramaic term brother refers to more than siblings, infact, any familial relationship and often countrymen, etc. The Greek in the NT repeats (and this is not the only instance) Aramaic terminology.

Consider: in the Septuagint - a template for the transaltion of Jewish concepts into Greek, and known to be repeatedly used in the Gospels - Lot is referred to as both the nephew and brother of Abraham. This is only one instance of the shifting (per English habit) use of the term brother.

Consider also, that John reports that Mary the mother of Christ has a sister named Mary.

Further, Mary is only referred to as the mother of Christ; her relationship to those named as brothers and sisters is only implied by association (ex., no direct statement of Mary the mother of x).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary was a heresy made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church.

This thread is not about sex.
It's about siblings.

However, apologies were written by: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); and Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444).

Since all these people lived CENTURIES after Mary was died and any possible siblings would have died, how in the world do they know - with dogmatic certainty - how these people were related to Jesus? What gives them ANY credibility whatsoever in this regard?

Bible believing Christians, knowing the inerrency of scripture, should respond with charity and kindness by focusing on these main points:

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphosadelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture?

In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27.

None of this substantiates that the brothers and sisters of Jesus... um... weren't. AT MOST (and it probably is stretching it a tad), AT MOST it means it's POSSIBLE they they were not blood siblings. But then, there is no denomination (known to me) that has a Dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs." No one is saying it's dogmatically true that He did. IF you are insisting that He did not, you'll need a LOT more than "well, it's POSSIBLE." Friend, "with God all things are possible." Such doesn't make it true. And you have just gone to some length to show that the words can mean biological blood siblings.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Annolennar]

This thread is not about sex.
It's about siblings.

Heh, one tends to precipitate the other. -wink-

Since all these people lived CENTURIES after Mary was died and any possible siblings would have died, how in the world do they know - with dogmatic certainty - how these people were related to Jesus? What gives them ANY credibility whatsoever in this regard?

I dare say that they (the historical authorities aforementioned) could ask the same question about someone making absolute statements about what the Bible does and doesn't say two thousand years later (i.e. this thread). Answer that question, and you'll find one valid answer to your own.

None of this substantiates that the brothers and sisters of Jesus... um... weren't. AT MOST (and it probably is stretching it a tad), AT MOST it means it's POSSIBLE they they were not blood siblings.

Um, at the risk of overstepping my bounds, I would suggest that Trento's point wasn't to dogmatically prove anything within the context of that single post.

But what Trento's post does show, is a counterpoint to the claim made in the OP (indeed, it was the point of the OP) that the Bible explicitly states that Jesus had physical, blood-relation brothers and sisters. Quite clearly, there is no such biblical statement.

Thank you, Trento, for those references.

 

[Qoheleth]

1. The opening post says NOTHING about Mary's virginity or the 7th century Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's about siblings, not her sex life.


2. Even if 50 theologians said something, that still would not mean that it's true. Even if they were ALL Protestants. Shared opinions is not substantiation for the opinion. There are MANY that believe in alien abductions - it doesn't make such dogma.


3. While I agree that the most obvious and likely interpretation of the several texts is that these were "blood siblings" of Jesus - IMHO it must be admitted that such is not the only textually possible interpretation. Thus, while I PERSONALLY agree with the opening poster, I do not support any DOGMA of "Jesus Had Sibs." But then, there is no denomination known to me that has or ever has had such a dogma.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

.

Part of the OP stated...

The fact that our Lord had brothers and sisters should prove as no surprise to a Christian. However, certain traditional Christian denominations such as the RCC and the EOC hold rigorously to the view that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin throughout her earthly pilgrimage and remains a perpetual virgin, in every physical sense of that word, in heaven.

I addressed the bolded part in particular in that not only do/did the EOC and the RCC subscribe to this belief but also the Reformers.


fair enough?


FWIW, the greater more curious issue is that all those mentioned (Reformers) were obviously sola Scriptura folks.




Q

 

[MamaZ]

The only problem I see in these scriptures would be to those who hold dogmatic that Mary was a forever virgin . Knowing that Jesus had brothers and sisters has been quite a blessing for some. For the scripture says that Jesus was tempted in every way known to us also and we all know growing up that brothers and sisters can often tempt you to sin.. So knowing Jesus was tempted in this way and understands where some are coming from is an awesome blessing..

 

[beamishboy]

Howdy folksies!!!

The beamishboy thanks the OP for this thread and for the invitation. It's a very interesting thread.

There can be no doubt that "brothers" is correctly translated. Some have quoted Luther, etc. It is true that they were under the firm belief that Mary had no children but we have to test that against scriptures. We know that some of these reformers were labouring for the better part of their lives under the rule of the Roman church and naturally, it's not surprising that they were very much influenced by it.

The best way we can understand Scripture is to see how words are used elsewhere in the NT. The scholar Leon Morris says that the brothers of Jesus are indeed brothers because there is a different word for "cousin" in Koine Greek. This word is "anephios" and we see it used in Col 4:10 and it is so translated in all the versions I know.

We are not arguing the Bible with atheists and if anyone believes that the Holy Spirit has any hand in the inspiration of God's holy Word, we must accept that if the Holy Spirit had wanted to tell us that Jesus had only cousins and no brothers, He would have ensured that that word is used. To use a word that is best translated "brothers" and in Col 4:10 where the exact relationship is not so important, the correct word for cousin is used can only mean that the Holy Spirit means for us Christians to understand that our Lord had brothers.

To argue in any other way would be to deny the power of the Holy Spirit of God in the inspiration of God's holy Word.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What I am observing here is that the apologists for the RCC and EOC dogmas are allowing Tradition to trump the clear teaching of the Bible. As of yet, and it is very early in this thread, I have not encountered a reasonable interpretation of these passages that does not force them into meaning something that the authors, not to mention all of the translators in the English translations I now, stated simply and clearly. I am not denying that there might be a reasonable interpretation out there, but I am waiting to see it.

On a parallel note, I am frankly puzzled that our blessed friends in the RCC and EOC choose to take a hyperliteralist stance concerning the Eucharist, but deny the plain and literal teaching of these multiple passages. Is the sole purpose of Tradition to trump Holy Scripture?

 

[beamishboy]

What I am observing here is that the apologists for the RCC and EOC dogmas are allowing Tradition to trump the clear teaching of the Bible. As of yet, and it is very early in this thread, I have not encountered a reasonable interpretation of these passages that does not force them into meaning something that the authors, not to mention all of the translators in the English translations I now, stated simply and clearly. I am not denying that there might be a reasonable interpretation out there, but I am waiting to see it.

On a parallel note, I am frankly puzzled that our blessed friends in the RCC and EOC choose to take a hyperliteralist stance concerning the Eucharist, but deny the plain and literal teaching of these multiple passages. Is the sole purpose of Tradition to trump Holy Scripture?

Quite right. The word clearly means "brothers" so let's not kid ourselves. If the Bible had meant "cousins", it would have used the same word used in Col 4:10.

The hyperliteralist stance concerning the Eucharist is something I can't understand either. Jesus also says he is the vine, the gate, the good shepherd, the lamb, the lion, etc etc. Why they pick only to be literal in the loaf and not the rest is something I find puzzling.

 

[Thekla]

could you explain the plain meaning of:

Mary the sister of Mary in the Gospel of John,

Lot the brother and nephew of Abraham ?

 

[beamishboy]

could you explain the plain meaning of:

Mary the sister of Mary in the Gospel of John,

Lot the brother and nephew of Abraham ?

Hi Thekla,

I'll be more than happy to explain these verses to you if only you will give me the exact verse and chapter numbers.

Thanks.

 

[Thekla]

Hi Thekla,

I'll be more than happy to explain these verses to you if only you will give me the exact verse and chapter numbers.

Thanks.

I am not asking for your explanation

we can all think - even including me

instead, I would like a comment -- based on the Bible alone - -

Lot, nephew: Genesis 11:27-31
brother: Genesis 13:8
(not the only example of the fluidity of the term adelphos in LXX Greek, but the one I can think of off the top of my head)


At the crucifixion, looking from afar:

Mary the mother of James and Joseph : Matthew 27:56
Mary the mother of James (the younger) and Joses* : Mark 15:40
* an alternate spelling for Joseph

At the crucifixion, at the foot of the cross:

Mary (mother of Christ) and sister Mary : John 19:25

 

[beamishboy]

I am not asking for your explanation

we can all think - even including me

instead, I would like a comment -- based on the Bible alone - -

Lot, nephew: Genesis 11:27-31
brother: Genesis 13:8
(not the only example of the fluidity of the term adelphos in LXX Greek, but the one I can think of off the top of my head)

No, you can't use an example from Genesis because Hebrew and Koine Greek are different languages. That is why I confined myself to using NT examples only. I've shown you that there is a perfectly good word for "cousin" in Koine Greek and it is used in Col 4:10.

At the crucifixion, looking from afar:

Mary the mother of James and Joseph : Matthew 27:56
Mary the mother of James (the younger*) and Joses*2 : Mark 15:40
* not the apostle, IIRC
*2 an alternate spelling for Joseph

At the crucifixion, at the foot of the cross:

Mary (mother of Christ) and sister Mary : John 19:25

I don't see a problem here. There were many women named Mary in those days, as the Bible tells us. Mary, the mother of James and Joses was the wife of Cleophas. Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children, was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. In Matthew, we are told that AMONG whom are the three women. This means there were more.

In John 19:25, four women are mentioned:
1. Mary, Jesus' mother
2. Mary's sister, ie Salome (although the name was not mentioned)
3. Mary, wife of Cleophas and
4. Mary Magdalene.

A good title for these women would be 3 Marys and a Salome.

But all these have nothing to do with the fact that there is a perfectly good word for "cousins" in Koine Greek (as we can see in Col 4:10) but the Holy Spirit chose the word for "brothers" when He inspired the writing of this Holy Gospel.

 

[Thekla]

No, you can't use an example from Genesis because Hebrew and Koine Greek are different languages. That is why I confined myself to using NT examples only. I've shown you that there is a perfectly good word for "cousin" in Koine Greek and it is used in Col 4:10.

the example(s) are from the LXX - which provide evidence for the way Semitic concepts are translated into Greek

I don't see a problem here. There were many women named Mary in those days, as the Bible tells us. Mary, the mother of James and Joses was the wife of Cleophas. Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children, was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. In Matthew, we are told that AMONG whom are the three women. This means there were more.

I'm afraid I wasn't clear: these (and other passages) exhibit the manner of indicating biological motherhood using the phrase "mother of x". Per Mary, the Theotokos , the term "mother of" is only used in reference to Christ.

In John 19:25, four women are mentioned:
1. Mary, Jesus' mother
2. Mary's sister, ie Salome (although the name was not mentioned)
3. Mary, wife of Cleophas and
4. Mary Magdalene.

the passage is:

25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

and clearly states that Mary's sister is named Mary - the name Salome is not used

But all these have nothing to do with the fact that there is a perfectly good word for "cousins" in Koine Greek (as we can see in Col 4:10) but the Holy Spirit chose the word for "brothers" when He inspired the writing of this Holy Gospel.

to allow a fair comparison, please provide:

1. pattern of Aramaic terminology used in the Gospels (these examples would exhibit an 'awkward meaning in the Greek - ex., the shift away from traditional Greek meaning in the use of the term "kosmos" and towards a semitic understanding of the word)
2. examples of where anepsios would be an appropriate term that was not used in the Gospels and an explanation for its absence

 

[beamishboy]

the example(s) are from the LXX - which provide evidence for the way Semitic concepts are translated into Greek

I wouldn't worry too much about the LXX if I were you. It's known to have countless errors. Modern scholarship and all Bible translations ignore the LXX. Why bother with something made by men when we can look at the word of God itself in its original tongue. You don't need to see what the LXX says about Genesis in order to learn what God is saying in the NT.

I'm afraid I wasn't clear: these (and other passages) exhibit the manner of indicating biological motherhood using the phrase "mother of x". Per Mary, the Theotokos , the term "mother of" is only used in reference to Christ.

What do you mean? I'm afraid I don't understand you. Why should "mother of" be used only in reference to Christ? That doesn't make sense.

the passage is:

and clearly states that Mary's sister is named Mary - the name Salome is not used

I think you misunderstood that verse. In John's verse, Salome is left out. Matthew tells us she was there. I know the atheists always tell us the Bible is wrong but since you believe the Bible is the word of God, you must agree that we have to harmonise the Gospels.

I've already shown you. Matthew says "among other women". Matthew did not mention Jesus' mother in that verse but it doesn't matter. He included her in his "among other women". John does not name Salome. You misread that part of John as mentioning three women with Salome left out. No, John mentions 4 women. He didn't give Salome's name. But we know from Matthew that Salome was there. Unless you are willing to say the Bible is a mistake, you have to conclude that Salome is Mary's sister.

to allow a fair comparison, please provide:

1. pattern of Aramaic terminology used in the Gospels (these examples would exhibit an 'awkward meaning in the Greek - ex., the shift away from traditional Greek meaning in the use of the term "kosmos" and towards a semitic understanding of the word)
2. examples of where anepsios would be an appropriate term that was not used in the Gospels and an explanation for its absence

Haha, looks like you're caught. I'm telling you that nowhere in the Gospels is there a situation where anepsios is the correct word but the Evangelists used adelphos instead. You would probably want to look for such an example but I'm telling you there is none. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

 

[Trento]

Since all these people lived CENTURIES after Mary was died and any possible siblings would have died, how in the world do they know - with dogmatic certainty - how these people were related to Jesus? What gives them ANY credibility whatsoever in this regard?









Pax


- Josiah

I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 Saint Athanasius AD 370

So if you havn't heard? The first person to recognize an exclusive 27 book NT canon, was bishop Athanasius in the 4th century.

If its ok for Catholic bishop Athanasius, 4 centuries later, to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief of canon, then it is also acceptable for the same bishop , to retro-acknowledge an apostle-held binding belief about Mary's ever Virginity.

This never ceases to amaze me. There are over a dozen Protestant web sites of all denominations and individuals here that show and brag that Athanasius was the one who first listed their canon of Scripture yet these same people will never admit that at the same time this Bishop believed that Mary was ever Virgin. Both came out of Tradition and all the Reformers believed it.