Did Jesus Have Siblings?

[12th Doctor]

Another contentious issue.  And once again, I will wait for others comments.

[J. J.]

According to the Bible, yes, including James, but please don't ask me how. 

[12th Doctor]

According to the Bible, yes, including James, but please don't ask me how. 

Where does the Bible say this?

[J. J.]

According to the Bible, yes, including James, but please don't ask me how. 

James was not a child of Mary, nor Joseph.  Where does the Bible say this?

The first chapter of Acts, part of which you just quoted on another thread, refers to Jesus's brothers.

A full account his here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

You can make the argument that James was a stepbrother or more distant relation, but you cannot do so using the Bible (or Josephus, who agrees.)

[opebo]

Yes - this is what is described as the Holey Trinity.

[12th Doctor]

According to the Bible, yes, including James, but please don't ask me how. 

James was not a child of Mary, nor Joseph.  Where does the Bible say this?

The first chapter of Acts, part of which you just quoted on another thread, refers to Jesus's brothers.

A full account his here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

You can make the argument that James was a stepbrother or more distant relation, but you cannot do so using the Bible (or Josephus, who agrees.)

Strange that you picked that passage as most people spring for Matthew 13:55-56.  All I can find in Acts is a mention of Mary being present with "brothers".

Sticking with Matthew, Matthew specifically mentions two Mary's at the crucifixion:

 Matthew 27: 56
    Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Now, one would think that it would be odd that Matthew would omit Mary the Mother of Jesus, and thus, he must be saying that Mary mother of James and Joseph is also Mary, Mother of Jesus.  .. especially since he calls these two men, among others, Jesus' "brothers" in the other passage I mentioned above.

Well, it is just that... odd.  Because, if we look at John, he specifically records three (or perhaps four, depending on how you interpret the commas) women at crucifixion (John 19):

 25
    10 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if the Mary noted by Matthew as the "the Mother of Joseph...." was also Mary the Mother of Jesus, then why would Matthew not have said that?  In fact, James and Joseph, two of those earlier identified as being "Brothers of Jesus" were actually the children of Mary the wife of Clopas (who was Joseph's brother, hence eliminating the theory that he and Jesus' Mother ever married and had children)

But, what is of particular interest is what comes next:


26
    When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son."
27
    Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

------------------------------------------------------------

John offers Mary over to the care of John, and vice versa.

If John were Jesus' brother (as has also been supposed) then this statement would have no point, because it would simply be understood.  If, on the other hand, Jesus had had other siblings, then this statement would have been a huge dis to them, because it would basically be suggesting, by the laws and customs of the day, that they were unfit to take care of Mary.

Speaking of customs, we can, in fact, explain this whole "brothers" thing.  We know Jesus' aunts and uncles had kids.  It is often explained that "Aramaic and Hebrew lack a word for "cousin"", but this actually doesn't go far enough.

I rolled across a revelation one day when I was in an Anthropology class, one day, discussing a totally different subject.  The topic was about how other cultures viewed familial relations, and the professor said that there were other cultures in the world where a persons cousins on one side, or both sides of the family tree were, in no way at all distinguished from a persons (what we would call) "brothers and sisters".  Furthermore, the professor said that this was far more common throughout the world in ancient times then today.

I was intrigued, so I went to look it up, and low and behold, the reason there is no word for "cousin" in Jesus' native tongue was because they didn't even distinguish such a thing.  The biblical evidence seems pretty clear, if you know where to look, Jesus did not have brothers or sister in the strict sense.

[J. J.]

I think it far from clear that the brothers of Jesus were not the sons of Mary.  I would also note that the concept of family was well established at that time, and, if not natural brothers, this distinction could be made.  House or "gens" could have been used.  It was a concept with the average Jew (not to mention the Hellenize Jew) would understand.

[afleitch]

I agree with J.J on this one, though since my last computer broke down I've lost what I had written about this so I'll try and piece it together. What I would say however, is that it whether or not Jesus had biological brothers (through his mothers side) isn't important. Interesting, but not important

[7,052,770]

It's possible, why but does it matter?

[J. J.]

"The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility." - Rufus, the 13th Apostle, Dogma 1999.

BTW:  I have become convinced that God has a sense of humor.

(Opebo is usually the punchline.)

[bullmoose88]

It's possible, why but does it matter?

I thought, and I am probably wrong, that the Roman Catholic Church (others too perhaps) contends that Mary remained a virgin for her whole life.

[12th Doctor]

I think it far from clear that the brothers of Jesus were not the sons of Mary.  I would also note that the concept of family was well established at that time, and, if not natural brothers, this distinction could be made.  House or "gens" could have been used.  It was a concept with the average Jew (not to mention the Hellenize Jew) would understand.

Its not a question of "being established", there very of the family was just different.  Had nothing to do with how advanced they were.

What about handing Mary and John over to eachother... what does that say to you?

[J. J.]

I think it far from clear that the brothers of Jesus were not the sons of Mary.  I would also note that the concept of family was well established at that time, and, if not natural brothers, this distinction could be made.  House or "gens" could have been used.  It was a concept with the average Jew (not to mention the Hellenize Jew) would understand.

Its not a question of "being established", there very of the family was just different.  Had nothing to do with how advanced they were.

What about handing Mary and John over to eachother... what does that say to you?

Symbolic, perhaps. 

[J. J.]

It's possible, why but does it matter?

I thought, and I am probably wrong, that the Roman Catholic Church (others too perhaps) contends that Mary remained a virgin for her whole life.

Just for the record I never said she wasn't.  And I wasn't her gynecologist.

[bullmoose88]

It's possible, why but does it matter?

I thought, and I am probably wrong, that the Roman Catholic Church (others too perhaps) contends that Mary remained a virgin for her whole life.

Just for the record I never said she wasn't.  And I wasn't her gynecologist.

I wasn't saying you were or you weren't...I was merely saying, perhaps poorly put, that the RC stands for that proposition and that I wasn't sure that of Christian churches, it was alone.

You aren't a Christian church unto yourself are you? :-p

[J. J.]

It's possible, why but does it matter?

I thought, and I am probably wrong, that the Roman Catholic Church (others too perhaps) contends that Mary remained a virgin for her whole life.

Just for the record I never said she wasn't.  And I wasn't her gynecologist.

I wasn't saying you were or you weren't...I was merely saying, perhaps poorly put, that the RC stands for that proposition and that I wasn't sure that of Christian churches, it was alone.

I just want to be clear that I wasn't saying that.  I think if God could create a virgin birth, He (She) could easily let two people conceive while one remained a virgin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be in Apostolic Succession. 

Ah, what's that lit up dove doing there? 

[bullmoose88]

Ah, what's that lit up dove doing there? 

Probably pissed off you ate its friend, the psychic pidgeon

[J. J.]

Ah, what's that lit up dove doing there? 

Probably pissed off you ate its friend, the psychic pidgeon

I cannot stop laughing. 

See this thread:



   
Re: Two Guesses
« Reply #4 on: Today at 02:11:44 pm »    

[J. J.]

If we believe the Bible and the Creed (and I do), we believe that God became man, impregnated himself into a virgin, rapidly matured, was killed and resurrected.

Does anyone find it impossible that he could have somehow preserved Mary's virginity, even if she had other children?

[12th Doctor]

If we believe the Bible and the Creed (and I do), we believe that God became man, impregnated himself into a virgin, rapidly matured, was killed and resurrected.

Does anyone find it impossible that he could have somehow preserved Mary's virginity, even if she had other children?

I'll continue this when I get back from class, I just wanted to say, be careful with "rapidly matured", it makes it sound like we think Jesus aged 3 years every month.

[J. J.]

If we believe the Bible and the Creed (and I do), we believe that God became man, impregnated himself into a virgin, rapidly matured, was killed and resurrected.

Does anyone find it impossible that he could have somehow preserved Mary's virginity, even if she had other children?

I'll continue this when I get back from class, I just wanted to say, be careful with "rapidly matured", it makes it sound like we think Jesus aged 3 years every month.

I believe the gestation time was very short.

I will be out this evening.

[J. J.]

If we believe the Bible and the Creed (and I do), we believe that God became man, impregnated himself into a virgin, rapidly matured, was killed and resurrected.

Does anyone find it impossible that he could have somehow preserved Mary's virginity, even if she had other children?

I'll continue this when I get back from class, I just wanted to say, be careful with "rapidly matured", it makes it sound like we think Jesus aged 3 years every month.

I believe the gestation time was very short.

I will be out this evening.

I'm back.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For the record... because no doubt it's in here

The Catholic Church DO maintain that Mary remained a Virgin, therefore making siblings difficult, but since the protestant denominations do not venerate her to the same degree whether or not "she got down" is totally irrelevant. I think Jesus did have siblings, but I don't see what difference it makes.

[7,052,770]

The whole Mary-was-a-virgin-forever sounds like an outdated fairy tale to me.

[12th Doctor]

The whole Mary-was-a-virgin-forever sounds like an outdated fairy tale to me.

People don't spend hundreds of years building up a case for something that is "just a fairy tale".

This is something, however, that if someone doesn't believe you really just can't convince them.  I have more evidence to trot out, but what's the point?  Everything I have said thus far has totally fallen on deaf ears.