Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[MrPolo]

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

None of which is "sibling." Possibly "brother" in the most common 21st century English sense. Not "sibling" which is what I said.

 

[narnia59]

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.

The Bible also refers to Joseph as the father of Jesus.

This identifies the issue with taking an individual scriptures and professing that anything that contradicts their stated meaning is 'wrong'. A concept also known as 'proof-texting'.

None of us reads that Joseph is the father of Jesus and come to the conclusion that Joseph actually fathered Jesus in the biological sense. Why not? It's plainly what those Scriptures indicate.

 

[Thekla]

and it was translated in our Bibles as such.

Which skips the use of adelphos, and thus does nothing to support your point.

Translators tend to translate in their "biased understanding".

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

Perhaps you could then review the use of adelphos throughout the LXX OT, the NT, and in the Hellenistic vernacular as opposed to 21st century popular culture.

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.

And the Holy Spirit led the ECFs who were led to canonize the books which are now the NT to understand that Mary was ever-virgin.

As for the present translators, there are errors.

 

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust.Your dogmas have little place in a Christian life. You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous. Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies.

 

[Thekla]

Heiferdust.Your dogmas have little place in a Christian life. You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous. Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies.

It is clear that some people feel terribly threatened by the possiblity that a woman might want to control/own her own body - thus refusing to become a potential sexual object for a male. For example: heiferdust. Why reduce the female to dust ? Why not say: calfdust ? This seems to betray a misogynistic bias. You also seem to suggest that without sexual activity, one is "not real" and "superfluous". What is the origin of that teaching ? If a woman cannot be considered a potential or sexual object of desire, she is both 'not real' and superfluous' -- in the sense that only as an available object of desire is she real and meaningful to the male subject. So, if a woman is not considered an available object for sexual gratification, she is "not real" and thus disposable (not human or person but instead a consumable object for gratification) and might as well be immolated or allowed to decay (heiferdust). Thus, all women who exhibit autonomy (as opposed to making themselves available as a 'consumer good') are threatening. Clearly, this seems to arise from a full embrace of the materialist culture where consumption is the center of meaning. In this model, humans are meaningful or not meaningful based on their potential usefulness for gratification by the subject/consumer. Those who are not 'useful' for the subject's gratification are 'useless' and thus disposable (dust).

 

[kiwimac]

You'd make a fine speech-writer for a politician.

 

[lionroar0]

Heiferdust.Your dogmas have little place in a Christian life. You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous. Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies.

Strange thing to post. Since the Ever-Virginity of Mary has been with in the Christian life of many Christians that have gone on before us, is part of many Christian lives now and will be part of the Christian lives of many more. "You have so removed Mary from real life as to make her effectively superfluous." Doesn't even make sense. "Your insistence that she must be ever virgin is simply a sample of the sex-hating, woman-hating nature of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and their heirarchies." yeah rightttt........ My quote button isn't working for reason

 

[Thekla]

You'd make a fine speech-writer for a politician.

This is non-responsive ... hmmm. Your statement about "fear of female sexuality", "oppression", and "heirarchy" seems to arise from a tacit if not unconscious acceptance of 'conspiracy theory' posited on the self congratulatory contemporary valorization of modern consumer culture (ie, its 2009, and look how advanced we are). It is thus "easy" for others to accept without any critical analysis. Interestingly, this is the same era which dehumanizes persons as useful/notuseful based on productivity or potential productivity as a function of initial investment (Chicago School of Economics, iirc). In this sense, the value of a person is derived from their position vis a vis the market. In an era of corporate globalization, the results of this view should be evident in terms of personal and environmental "costs". We have entered into an era of the "commodification" of the person. I only ask that one apply a critical eye to the received (and often unquestioned acceptance) of these cultural teachings. It was Christianity that opposed the depersonalization of the human - it is the Churches you accused that first developed the concept of "person" that we now enjoy -- and unfortunately, in the present era, enjoy degrading. The present cultural anti-Church attitude betrays the danger that Christianity, the Churches you mention, presently pose to the status quo. How can one be a "good consumer/producer" if one is more attached to Christ than the shopping mall for fulfillment ? How can one become financially successful if one seeks Christ with all their heart and thus truly loves their neighbor ? The Virgin Mary dedicated herself wholly to God; she is a dangerous foil to the status quo of consumer culture. No wonder so many find it hard to accept the completeness of her dedication to God.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

This is not the case. Older sons of Joseph, by another marriage, would also be called siblings to the Lord.The Bible says the Lord had such siblings, but this does not mean they were born of Mary, and tradition tells us very clearly and without equivocation that they were not.
I think at this point I will bow out of this thread. I do not think it is honouring God in any way to take further part in a thread speculating about the purity of the Theotokos.Which of us would discuss such matters about our Minister's mother? That gives us our answer, I think.

 

[Mobiosity]

None of which is "sibling." Possibly "brother" in the most common 21st century English sense. Not "sibling" which is what I said.

Which is to say, my brother is not my sibling? My parents will be surprised.

 

[Mobiosity]

This is not the case. Older sons of Joseph, by another marriage, would also be called siblings to the Lord.The Bible says the Lord had such siblings, but this does not mean they were born of Mary, and tradition tells us very clearly and without equivocation that they were not.

Which underscores my problem with this. Tradition is handed down from man. Holy Scripture is handed down from God.

 

[Mobiosity]

The Bible also refers to Joseph as the father of Jesus.

This identifies the issue with taking an individual scriptures and professing that anything that contradicts their stated meaning is 'wrong'. A concept also known as 'proof-texting'.

None of us reads that Joseph is the father of Jesus and come to the conclusion that Joseph actually fathered Jesus in the biological sense. Why not? It's plainly what those Scriptures indicate.

The Scripture says that Mary was overshadowed by Holy Spirit and became pregnant by that means. It says, Joseph had not had sex with her before she became pregnant. Therefore, we ALL understand that Joseph was Jesus' father emotionally, not physically.

 

[Mobiosity]

Which skips the use of adelphos, and thus does nothing to support your point.

Translators tend to translate in their "biased understanding".


Perhaps you could then review the use of adelphos throughout the LXX OT, the NT, and in the Hellenistic vernacular as opposed to 21st century popular culture.




And the Holy Spirit led the ECFs who were led to canonize the books which are now the NT to understand that Mary was ever-virgin.

As for the present translators, there are errors.

Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?

 

[prodromos]

Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?

The ECF's (Early Church Fathers) were not translators, they were native speakers of Greek. Are you suggesting they were not led by the Holy Spirit when they determined which books constitute the New Testament?

How did you conclude that those who translated the Greek texts of the bible into English were led by the Holy Spirit? Why then are there so many variations of English translations? Shouldn't there just be one?

John

 

[Mobiosity]

How did you conclude that those who translated the Greek texts of the bible into English were led by the Holy Spirit? Why then are there so many variations of English translations? Shouldn't there just be one?
John

How did you conclude that those who translated the Greek texts of the bible into English were led by the Holy Spirit? Why then are there so many variations of English translations? Shouldn't there just be one?

John

And 2000+ years after the events, which version would you choose? Word for word; thought for thought; a paraphrase? Which scholarship would be acceptable to you? 1611, 1951, 2000? The information available due to improved translation information and new archialogical finds; or the old tried and true hand written from a combination of written records and oral traditions?

KJV is difficult and some find it nearly impossible to decipher, NKJV has much of the beauty and is much more easily understood. NIV was re-translated from older documents than were available in 1611. Paraphrases make God's word available to people who might be put off from reading a traditional Bible.

There are many reasons for the several translations; the events portrayed were widely known and many people thought it was important enough to write down what they knew about it, what they saw, what they did. Some of that information was then compiled and set down on papyrus. Some of the scrolls were discovered in the 15 or so centuries following. Others were discovered hundreds of years after that, some coroborated the known scriptures, others cast doubt on the currently available translations.

Here is a partial list of the versions and their publication dates. God knows that none of us are the same and will prefer scriptures in different versions. He's making sure it's available to all.

NASB New American Standard Bible (1971; update 1995)
AMP Amplified Bible (1965)
ESV English Standard Version (2001)
RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)
KJV King James Version (1611; significantly revised 1769)
NKJV New King James Version (1982)
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Version (2004)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989)
NAB New American Bible (Catholic, 1970, 1986 (NT), 1991 (Psalms)
NJB New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic, 1986; revision of 1966 Jerusalem Bible)
NIV New International Version (1984)
TNIV Today’s New International Version (NT 2001, OT 2005)
NCV New Century Version
NLT1 New Living Translation (1st ed. 1996; 2nd ed. 2004)
NIrV New International reader’s Version
GNT Good News Translation (also Good News Bible)
CEV Contemporary English Version
Living Living Bible (1950). Paraphrase by Ken Taylor. Liberal treatment of ‘blood.’
Message The Message by Eugene Peterson (1991-2000s)

 

[Thekla]

Which is to say, my brother is not my sibling? My parents will be surprised.

In Hellenistic Greek, this is indeed a likely scenario if you replace the term "brother" in your statement to "adelphos". Your adelphos could mean your sibling or any number of other meanings. What would govern the meaning of adelphos in this context is your actual relationship. The NT does not make clear which meaning of adelphos is meant. In Hellenistic, where a specific meaning of adelphos is important, there is given an additional descriptive. In your case - where your adelphos is a blood sibling, a description would indicate how (ex. born of the same mother).

 

[Thekla]

Wait a minute, you're saying that the translators you agree with were led by Holy Spirit and those that don't agree with you weren't?

No, it seems to be what you are saying. I am pointing out that the men who treated the present canon of the NT as Holy Scripture also believed that Mary was ever-virgin.

 

[prodromos]

And 2000+ years after the events, which version would you choose? Word for word; thought for thought; a paraphrase? Which scholarship would be acceptable to you? 1611, 1951, 2000? The information available due to improved translation information and new archialogical finds; or the old tried and true hand written from a combination of written records and oral traditions?

None of this or what followed answers my question

 

[kiwimac]

No, it seems to be what you are saying. I am pointing out that the men who treated the present canon of the NT as Holy Scripture also believed that Mary was ever-virgin.

And they were wrong.

 

[Thekla]

And they were wrong.

Please provide evidence to support your assertion.