Jesus' Siblings

Godmachine · #1 Jun 28, '12, 9:27 pm

I am in a discussion on another forum with a fire and brimstone Baptist minister. I am a former Catholic. Naturally he is trying desperately to "save" me. I've been arguing that essentially his beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are no different from Catholic beliefs. He believes in one god, Jesus was the Son of God who healed the sick, performed miracles and so on. But still he insists that Catholics believe in a "false doctrine" because Catholics, among other things, pray to Mary and deny the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters in order to preserve Mary's perpetual virginity. I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but rather try to gloss over the subject so as not to raise uncomfortable questions. But I held back on that argument because I am not sure if it is accurate. So I thought I would raise the subject here and see what Catholics have to say. Do you believe Jesus had brothers and/or sisters? If so what does that say about Mary's perpetual virginity?

ConstantineTG · #2 Jun 28, '12, 9:34 pm

Jesus did have brothers and sisters. But they are not directly related to him. They are children of Joseph by a previous marriage. He was a widower when Mary was bethrothed to him. So they are actually step-siblings. They are not children of Mary.

DavidFilmer · #3 Jun 28, '12, 9:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters... But I held back on that argument because I am not sure if it is accurate.

Good plan. It is Catholic dogma that Mary had no children other than Jesus.

There are several good (and short) Catholic Answers tracts concerning Mary here.

**LilyM** · #4 Jun 28, '12, 9:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Jesus did have brothers and sisters. But they are not directly related to him. They are children of Joseph by a previous marriage. He was a widower when Mary was bethrothed to him. So they are actually step-siblings. They are not children of Mary.

This is pious tradition rather than church teaching. We do not know for a fact either way. In any event the 'brothers' named in scripture all have other parents who are named elsewhere in the Gospels, so it would appear that at least they are not Joseph's children nor Mary's.

TEPO · #5 Jun 28, '12, 9:58 pm

Jesus had no brothers or sisters. He only had cousins.

ConstantineTG · #6 Jun 28, '12, 11:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

This is pious tradition rather than church teaching. We do not know for a fact either way. In any event the 'brothers' named in scripture all have other parents who are named elsewhere in the Gospels, so it would appear that at least they are not Joseph's children nor Mary's.

Tradition IS Church teaching. St. James is always referred to as "Brother of the Lord" in the East, never "Cousin of the Lord". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

**LilyM** · #7 Jun 28, '12, 11:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Tradition IS Church teaching. St. James is always referred to as "Brother of the Lord" in the East, never "Cousin of the Lord". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It is not capital T tradition that Joseph had children from a precious marriage! Only capital T tradition is church teaching.

And yes, St James is referred to as 'brother'. So what? Abraham calls Lot his 'brother' - meaning nephew, not biological brother.

So does St Luke call all the 120 people gathered in the upper room 'brothers' - clearly they are not all biological siblings. Not all are even male - the Blessed Virgin is numbered among them. Heck, Paul calls all the people he writes to 'brothers'!

We cannot take such things either literally or dogmatically

ConstantineTG · #8 Jun 28, '12, 11:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

It is not capital T tradition that Joseph had children from a precious marriage! Only capital T tradition is church teaching.

And yes, St James is referred to as 'brother'. So what? Abraham calls Lot his 'brother' - meaning nephew, not biological brother.

So does St Luke call all the 120 people gathered in the upper room 'brothers' - clearly they are not all biological siblings. Not all are even male - the Blessed Virgin is numbered among them. Heck, Paul calls all the people he writes to 'brothers'!

We cannot take such things either literally or dogmatically

You're arguing against the early and unbroken and venerable Tradition of the East. It is not Jews of 2000 BC making this claim, it is early Christian Church Fathers. This is the faith they carried and taught and what we believe to this day.

Besides, if your claim that "brother" is loosely used, then explain why is it that only St. James is the one attached the title, "Brother of our Lord" or in some translations, "Brother of God"? Why not St. Peter? Why not Saint Paul? In fact in venerable Eastern traditions, saints who have had great contributions to the faith but do not rank among the Apostles are given titles like "Equal to the Apostles." So why is it there no other saint called "Brother of our Lord" other than Saint James? Clearly this isn't meant as a term of endearment, but rather a description of who he is. The same way that Mary is called Theotokos, "the one who bore God" or "Mother of God".

We believe as such and we pray as such during our Liturgies on St. James' day. So it doesn't matter how you spell tradition, with a capital or lowercase "t", its the same to us Easterners. This is something we believe in and will not believe in anything else. We will not change the faith and tradition that was handed down to us by the Church Fathers.

**LilyM** · #9 Jun 29, '12, 12:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

You're arguing against the early and unbroken and venerable Tradition of the East. It is not Jews of 2000 BC making this claim, it is early Christian Church Fathers. This is the faith they carried and taught and what we believe to this day.

Besides, if your claim that "brother" is loosely used, then explain why is it that only St. James is the one attached the title, "Brother of our Lord" or in some translations, "Brother of God"? Why not St. Peter? Why not Saint Paul? In fact in venerable Eastern traditions, saints who have had great contributions to the faith but do not rank among the Apostles are given titles like "Equal to the Apostles." So why is it there no other saint called "Brother of our Lord" other than Saint James? Clearly this isn't meant as a term of endearment, but rather a description of who he is. The same way that Mary is called Theotokos, "the one who bore God" or "Mother of God".

We believe as such and we pray as such during our Liturgies on St. James' day. So it doesn't matter how you spell tradition, with a capital or lowercase "t", its the same to us Easterners. This is something we believe in and will not believe in anything else. We will not change the faith and tradition that was handed down to us by the Church Fathers.

So you're telling me I'm going to go to hell for not believing that James was Jesus' half-brother, the son of Joseph, even though scripture says clearly that his father was not Joseph but Alpaeus?

And who on earth says it was not a term of endearment? Jesus called the sons of Zebedee sons of thunder - He did use terms of endearment, which were recorded as such in scripture. There is no reason this couldn't have been another.

Godmachine · #10 Jun 29, '12, 12:25 am

I can see how the words "brother" or "sister" could have other meanings aside from blood relation. Soldiers sometimes call fellow soldiers "brothers in arms". A close knit group of friends might refer to one another as "brothers" or "sisters". So let's put aside references to those particular words. There is an interesting passage in the gospel of Luke talking about the birth of Jesus. Luke 2:7 "She gave birth to her first son...." The word "first" implies there was a second. I can think of no other reason to include that word.

Trebor135 · #11 Jun 29, '12, 12:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

I am in a discussion on another forum with a fire and brimstone Baptist minister. I am a former Catholic. Naturally he is trying desperately to "save" me. I've been arguing that essentially his beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are no different from Catholic beliefs. He believes in one god, Jesus was the Son of God who healed the sick, performed miracles and so on. But still he insists that Catholics believe in a "false doctrine" because Catholics, among other things, pray to Mary and deny the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters in order to preserve Mary's perpetual virginity. I wanted to argue that Catholics do not deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but rather try to gloss over the subject so as not to raise uncomfortable questions. But I held back on that argument because I am not sure if it is accurate. So I thought I would raise the subject here and see what Catholics have to say. Do you believe Jesus had brothers and/or sisters? If so what does that say about Mary's perpetual virginity?

Suggest to the Baptist minister that he read this.

God bless you, Godmachine.

T.

Godmachine · #12 Jun 29, '12, 12:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebor135

Suggest to the Baptist minister that he read this.

God bless you, Godmachine.

T.

It would not matter to him because it isn't "biblical". To him if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't true. And if it is in the Bible it is LITERALLY true. The guy is a hoot. I have a lot of fun arguing with him. Of course I have a lot of fun arguing with some of you guys too.

Blue Horizon · #13 Jun 29, '12, 1:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

Do you believe Jesus had brothers and/or sisters? If so what does that say about Mary's perpetual virginity?

Godmachine
You will find nothing in Scripture that can clearly prove Jesus had blood brothers/sisters (or not).

James the "brother of the Lord" appears no more than an informal title used in the Early Church to distinguish a famous cousin of Jesus from a number of other prominent "Jameses". That this cousin looked almost exactly like Jesus is likely another reason he gained that distinguishing title. Nothing further may be definitively concluded from this phrase; to do so would be akin to saying Jesus must have had more brothers because Scripture said he was Mary's "first-born". Such 20th century "logic" is a bit silly and totally misunderstands the use of such expressions at that time.

Middle of the road NT scholars tend to agree that it is very reasonable to hold that the NT does affirm that Jesus was conceived by Mary without human seed or intercourse.

I believe it is taught as a matter of faith by the Catholic Church that Mary remained a virgin for the remainder of her life (see CathCatechism #499 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#II). Therefore Jesus had no direct blood brothers/sisters.

This will not help you in your Protestant apologetics. Your friend only recognises the "truth" of Scripture (and of course he will maintain his interpretation is the only correct one on "scholarly" grounds) and not the Magisterial teaching of the Cath Church.

It matters not, just smile and be at peace when others contradict your faith. Such are not "converted" by "argument."

Godmachine · #14 Jun 29, '12, 1:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

Godmachine
You will find nothing in Scripture that can clearly prove Jesus had blood brothers/sisters (or not).

James the "brother of the Lord" appears no more than an informal title used in the Early Church to distinguish a famous cousin of Jesus from a number of other prominent "Jameses". That this cousin looked almost exactly like Jesus is likely another reason he gained that distinguishing title. Nothing further may be definitively concluded from this phrase; to do so would be akin to saying Jesus must have had more brothers because Scripture said he was Mary's "first-born". Such 20th century "logic" is a bit silly and totally misunderstands the use of such expressions at that time.

Middle of the road NT scholars tend to agree that it is very reasonable to hold that the NT does affirm that Jesus was conceived by Mary without human seed or intercourse.

I believe it is taught as a matter of faith by the Catholic Church that Mary remained a virgin for the remainder of her life (see CathCatechism #499 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#II). Therefore Jesus had no direct blood brothers/sisters.

Then why does Luke 2:7 say "She gave birth to her first son...."? It does not say "only", it specifically says "first" which implies there was a second. How do you explain that?

Blue Horizon · #15 Jun 29, '12, 1:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

Then why does Luke 2:7 say "She gave birth to her first son...."? It does not say "only", it specifically says "first" which implies there was a second. How do you explain that?

Godmachine
I have just explained that in my response above. It is a sort of title just as "brother of the Lord" is an informal title. You are using 20th century "logic" and it is illogical. If you understood the language and culture of Jesus's time you would soon realise that the first child has a special place in the family - which is why it is become a title indicating status. It says nothing conclusive about whether there are subsequent children.