Jesus had brothers??????

I need all of your help (Catholic and non). There has been this one show that comes on In Hawaii and it is of a local church. For the last three times that i’ve seen it, the pastor has been saying that Jesus had half brothers. The pastor says that Mary and Joseph had other children.

The Catholic Church believes Mary was a virgin even at death and that she and Joseph never had other children. Do other chruchs believe that they had other children? I have spoken to our deacon and priest about this issue, and they have said that Mary and Joseph never had any other children. I’ve read the CCC and understands what it says. I know that with the Bible it is all about the right interpretation. But what gives?

If the pastor of this church is wrong, then he must be stopped. I’ve been wanting to call the church but my deacon says not to. What should I do? It is really bothering me.

I do not believe this is a true story. No priest would ever say this.
And why question it? Only ones who have never read the Bible would even consider this story.

JESUS WAS DIVINE. HE HAD NO BROTHERS. MARY WAS AND REMAINED A VIRGIN.

It is confusing, since the Bible refers to “the bretheren of the Lord”. Some translations even render it as the brothers or brothers and sisters of the Lord. It has mainly to do with etimology of the language and useful translations of certain words. Best to read this tract catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Of course, there are those who wish to prove the Catholic Church wrong, even at the cost of the truth, so…what can we do?

Interestingly, all the fathers of the reformation staunchly defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. This idea of Jesus having brothers is a new invention, one whos origin is hard to pin down.

Ezekiel 44:2. “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.”

The Bible is pretty adamant about her perpetual virginity.

It sounds like this particular man is not a Catholic, and therefore may interpret it differently. In protestant Bibles, it talks about James the brother of Jesus. The term in the original language is very ambiguous and refers to a close relation of some kind, so it can mean brother or sister, or cousin. I believe the Cathoilc translation renders it as cousin.

I understand your concern, but speaking as a former Baptist, many of the fundamentalist/evangelical denominations do not believe in the ever virginity of Mary. These religions rely on a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone). If it should be believed, it is in the Bible, and the Bible makes no mention of the continuing virginity of Mary. Many also believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible ,and since their Bible includes references to a “brother” it only makes sense that they would believe that Jesus has a brother. Attempting to correct him will not work since he is not Catholic and therefore is not subject to our traditions, beliefs, and interpretations.

I hope this helps!

P.S. If your deacon is counseling you not to talk to the church, I would follow his advice. At least in my opinion, this is a very trivial thing. Even though I did not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity (I had never even heard of it), I still believed that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Christ and still respected her. This view does not in any way limit or negate their view of Jesus’ divinity.

Yes, this is a venerable tradition which we Catholics also share. It does not threaten Mary’s perpetual virginity because the siblings (both male and female, sometimes called half, sometimes step) are from Joseph’s previous marriage, which ended by death before he as an old man took Mary into his care after she left the temple.

See here and read the Protoevangelium of James for yourself. You don’t have to believe what is in the Protoevangelium, but it is a Catholic (as well as Orthodox) tradition that is strongly held and influences many fundamental writings, feasts, and beliefs of the Church.

It is a true story. This pastor is not a priest. I’m sorry if I may have misled you guys. It comes from a non-denominal pastor. I don’t want to give out his church.

If what you guys are saying is true, then this pastor is leading his congregation astray. It has to be stopped. That is what is wrong with alot of denomenations. If there are churches out there all teaching different, then how are we to unite as one? When we all know that’s what Jesus wants.

Trying to stop people from misreading Scripture is like trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. Your best response is to increase your own knowledge of the Scriptures, complete with the Catholic understanding of their meaning, so that you will more easily spot such errors whenever you see them.

Who appointed you to “stop” others from teaching error? Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest, then He would send His angels to sort them out. The truth is you are not in a position to stopped people from teaching error. Your attention should be on what you are doing, and teaching people the truth yourself.

I recommend that you start by shutting off that program. Listen to EWTN, or Catholic radio, and don’;t support or participate in programs that teach error.

**Hello??!!

Did any one read my post?

This pastor is not teaching error! The Catholic Church agrees with him!**

…it all centers around the Greek word adelphoi. This word can be translated to mean brothers, cousins, or relatives…

  • The Catholicism Answer Book

So it could mean that his cousins or uncles or even grandparents visited him. We cannot really be sure, but the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

Not according to the Word of God…

If Jesus had had blood siblings, Under Jewish custom of the day, they would have been responsible for the care of His mother, yet, in spite of the case you would make, He went out of His way to see to her care by giving her to St. John as one of his last acts from the cross.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
'Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

I read your post, and yes, the Church accepts that Joseph may have had other children, so Jesus had stepbrothers. The Church DOES NOT teach that any other children came from the womb of Mary.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.

This is an Orthodox page, but the topic is one which the undivided Church believed and taught, so I am linking to it because it deals directly with the objections on this thread. Where does it fail?

You don’t have to believe what is in the Protoevangelium, but it is a Catholic (as well as Orthodox) tradition that is strongly held and influences many fundamental writings, feasts, and beliefs of the Church. The Catholic Church would definitely not say that it is an error to be corrected.
*
And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. *

Have you looked at the context for the passage you quote? This has nothing to do with Mary.

Have you looked at the context for the passage you quote? This has nothing to do with Mary.

If you reject this prophecy because it doesn’t specifically say it refers to Mary, I’m assuming you’ll also reject Isaiah 53 because it doesn’t specifically say it refers to Jesus?

Mary is a gate of Heaven, the Lord passed through it. I don’t see how this prophecy could possibly not refer to Mary. What do you think it’s talking about then?

You say the context doesn’t refer to Mary, but three verses later, the term “son of man” is specifically used. Eh?

EphelDuath;3159487]

Quote:justasking4
Have you looked at the context for the passage you quote? This has nothing to do with Mary.
EphelDuath
If you reject this prophecy because it doesn’t specifically say it refers to Mary,

It says nothing about her nor any allusions to the mother of Messiah.

EphelDuath
I’m assuming you’ll also reject Isaiah 53 because it doesn’t specifically say it refers to Jesus?

No. The description of the suffering servant in the passage is to strong of correlation to Jesus’ life and ministry.

Mary is a gate of Heaven, the Lord passed through it. I don’t see how this prophecy could possibly not refer to Mary. What do you think it’s talking about then?

Reading the chapter, the chapter itself will help to understand what is going on. There are some warnings in it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.