I was thinking about something today. If Jesus has brothers and sisters does that not mean that his flesh i.e. his genetic code is still walking around.
He doesn’t, so the point is moot.
In Aramaic, there is no word for cousin. In ancient societies, those from your home town or region were known as your brothers and sisters. There is ample evidence Mary remained virgin, and that is exactly what is taught by the church. I had the “Mary problem” when I entered the faith, but God, in His infinite wisdom, revealed the truth to me. Please see this post: forums.catholic.com/showthrea…TY#post2773897
Christ’s peace be always with you.
As it’s been pointed out, the point IS moot. However, hypothetically, if Jesus had blood siblings, you’d think that the lineage-obsessive rulers in the “dark ages” and medieval periods would do everything they could to prove “divine” ancestry. Given the great piety of the time, any person who had lineage back to Jesus would have been regarded with awe or reverence. I think the fact that no such claims ever existed is further evidence of Jesus NOT having siblings
The “Protestant” argument claims that Mary had other children from relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. So if they are right, (which Sacred Traditional has always claimed they are wrong), then the offspring would be children of Joseph and Mary, not of Mary and the Holy Spirit.
So if they are right, (which Sacred Traditional has always claimed they are wrong), then the offspring would be children of Joseph and Mary, not of Mary and the Holy Spirit.
Of course they don’t listen to sacred traditon so i think we can’t use that logic.
But physically speaking the holy spirit has no genetic code therefore Jesus would be the male equavliant of mary. So even if Jesus had half brothers and sisters that means half of his flesh is still walking around.
Just a little backstory as to why i’m thinking this. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a very dangerous belief. for evidence just look at what Kevin smith did in dogma and what dan brown supposes in the davinci code. it’s also in the archeological NIV bible being sold by zondervon at your local sam’s or wal-mart in reference to luke 8 -19
But all this is rooted in the tradition of an empty cross.
The flesh was of know avail ,he just had to die and now everything is hunky dory.
As a little girl from my in-laws church told me after seening me make the sign of the cross " why do you kiss the cross, jesus is not on the cross anymore."
It also the same argument to get rid of any eucharistic understanding of john 6.
If this doesn’t make any sense please forgive me, my mind moves at a thosand mile an hour sometimes connecting all the dots.
Unless I misunderstand your post, it seems like you are saying that people in the middle ages were pious and that they “would do everything they could to prove “divine” ancestry”, but then you said the lineage of Jesus would have been protected and reverenced.
Is that right?
If they knew Jesus had relatives according to blood line wouldn’t that be ‘evidence’ against Jesus’ divinity? To protect the blood line would be to acknowledge that Jesus was not God Incarnate. Because wouldn’t any relatives who survived would be distant relatives of Mary, but not necessarily Jesus because we obviously believe Jesus did not marry (if you are Christian)?
Suppose that Christ was implanted in embryonic form. Then earthly DNA has nothing at all to do with it. God knew that Oprah, Maury, Montel and Jerry Springer ad nauseum would love to do shows on any potential alcoholic loser that could trace back to Christ, so He prevented the possibility.
It is generally believed that any “brothers and sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are either cousins (as discussed above) or children of Joseph from a first marriage. Joseph was an old man when he married Mary, so likely would have had children.
Everyone at the time would have thought them to be Jesus’ half-siblings. But we know there was no blood relation.
I know this has been asked many times before but I forgot the answer:
When we say that there is no word for cousin in Aramaic or Greek, why is in Luke 1 it says:
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
How can the flesh which was nailed to the cross be of no avail?
I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought it was the opposite, that there was no word for “brother” or “sister.” And that the Aramaic word for cousin is used in its place.
Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
Somewhat confussing, but I hope this helps.