Skip to main content

13 replies

Why Does the Bible Say Jesus Had Brothers?

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful

 

Q:  What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible?  Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?

 

A:  No.The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus.  Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon...”

The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56.  Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...” 

 

It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus. 

 

Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer — in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith — then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have? 

But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus — neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus.

 

So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.

Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/reli...ers-5844835441311744

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

ContendahContendahOld Faithful

Jack Flash--you did a cute little bypass on Mark 6:3 by not quoting it in full.  It lists a whole bunch of Jesus' siblings.  Here 'tis for those who don't like to be spoon-fed with such devious omissions as you have engineered:

 

Mark 6:3Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

And here is the same verse from the Catholic-preferred translation:

Mark 6:3Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

 

 

They had big families back then, Jack, and Joseph and the FORMER virgin, Mary, did their part.

 

Read up and get yourself straight on this question:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

 

http://www.biblestudy.org/ques...ers-and-sisters.html

 

The entire superstition regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually founded on a misunderstanding, a groundless assumption, namely, that the perpetual virginity of Mary, even if it could be proved, would add the slightest luster to the crown of Mary's glory. It would do no such thing. The Bible does not elevate virginity as a state above Christian motherhood. To suppose Mary's virginity throughout her life would be to suppose that she defrauded Joseph her husband, contrary to the conjugal duty owed to him (1 Corinthians 7:2,3). We cannot believe that Mary did this. A Christian mother is every whit as holy as any virgin, perpetual or not. For holiness, no celibate, male or female, can compare with Christian parents. As Paul expressed it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4; 13:4 ). Then why pretend that the marriage bed IS defiled and strive to "protect" the virgin Mary from such man-imputed defilement?

http://classic.studylight.org/...k=mt&chapter=001

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful

The subject of Jesus' brothers has been worn out and the same results are

true today as they were two thousand years ago. All the James, John ect.

have been accounted for and paired up with their rightful parents.

 

There's no word for cousin at that time, even females were called brothers.

 

Matt 27: 56

56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and

Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

　

Matt 13: 55-56

55 His brethren: These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.

 

John 19: 25-27

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.

27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour,

the disciple took her to his own.

 

Jesus couldn't have given the care of his Mother to John, under Jewish law,

if he had siblings. Did you ever know Jesus to break the law?

　

Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:12Consecrate first-born that opens the womb. (In a Jewish culture, the first-born was a special child. It does not imply there were other children.)

 

Exodus 13:1-16 First-born among your sons you shall redeem. (In a Jewish culture, the first-born was a special child. It does not imply there were other children.)

 

Matthew 1:23Look! The virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel, "A name which means ‘God is with us’."

 

A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!

 

Matthew 13:55-56

Brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. In Hebrew, there is no word for cousin. In this Hebrew culture, a non-blood line relative was called a brother.

 

ContendahContendahOld Faithful

Explain this, Jack:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He born; thus  He was "born of a virgin." It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash.

 

 

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Explain this, Jack:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He born; thus  He was "born of a virgin." It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash.

 

 

-----------

What you aren't aware of are the Protestants that don't believe in the virginal

birth, much less about a perpetual virgin. You for instance, believe maybe

60% of the Bible, why would I expect you to believe the truth that has been

denied you early, given the next seventy years left to your feel good theology

I'm not surprised at anything you think. I'm not surprised you give so much

credit to the Pope. More credit than Catholics give him..??

 

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Explain this, Jack:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He born; thus  He was "born of a virgin." It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash.

 

 

-----------

What you aren't aware of are the Protestants that don't believe in the virginal

birth, much less about a perpetual virgin. You for instance, believe maybe

60% of the Bible, why would I expect you to believe the truth that has been

denied you early, given the next seventy years left to your feel good theology

I'm not surprised at anything you think. I'm not surprised you give so much

credit to the Pope. More credit than Catholics give him..??

 

Matt 1: 25

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his

name JESUS.

 

The verse says Joseph knew her not till, "heos" greek. "Not till" doesn't mean

"did not--untill after." Heos reference the past, never the future.

 

The first born didn't necessarily mean just the first born. It was also a title that

went with the first. It doesn't mean the first of four or five.

 

You tell me Contendah,

They had big families back then, Jack, and Joseph and the FORMER virgin,

Mary, did their part.

 

Read up and get yourself straight on this question:

 

In your mind you believe you're right. You run your typical little bluff and

expect that's all to be said. If you weren't so ignorant you would be easier

to talk to. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, just your everyday run of the mill Jew baby

boy born in a gehtto. I can hear you now, "I don't care, I got mine"........sweet.

Good Nite Irene.............

 

 

CrustyMacCrustyMacOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm curious.  Does Immanuel translate to Jesus somehow?

 

 

You missed "See Spot Run" in Kindergarten. Didn't you?

 

Measles kept you out that day?

________________

Never had the measles, you must mean the mumps.  Since I missed Kindergarten that day, you will be explaining it to me?  Or just trolling?

ContendahContendahOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Explain this, Jack:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He born; thus  He was "born of a virgin." It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash.

 

 

-----------

What you aren't aware of are the Protestants that don't believe in the virginal

birth, much less about a perpetual virgin. You for instance, believe maybe

60% of the Bible, why would I expect you to believe the truth that has been

denied you early, given the next seventy years left to your feel good theology

I'm not surprised at anything you think. I'm not surprised you give so much

credit to the Pope. More credit than Catholics give him..??

 

Matt 1: 25

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his

name JESUS.

 

The verse says Joseph knew her not till, "heos" greek. "Not till" doesn't mean

"did not--untill after." Heos reference the past, never the future.

 

The first born didn't necessarily mean just the first born. It was also a title that

went with the first. It doesn't mean the first of four or five.

 

You tell me Contendah,

They had big families back then, Jack, and Joseph and the FORMER virgin,

Mary, did their part.

 

Read up and get yourself straight on this question:

 

In your mind you believe you're right. You run your typical little bluff and

expect that's all to be said. If you weren't so ignorant you would be easier

to talk to. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, just your everyday run of the mill Jew baby

boy born in a gehtto. I can hear you now, "I don't care, I got mine"........sweet.

Good Nite Irene.............

____

Once more, Jack, since in your inchoate, smoke-screening, vituperative  rambling, you never addressed it.  From my post above:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

My reply, which you ignored:

 

"No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He was born; thus  He was 'born of a virgin.' It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash."

 

It still won't wash, Jack.  How and from where do you come up with such nonsense?

 

 

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Explain this, Jack:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He born; thus  He was "born of a virgin." It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash.

 

 

-----------

What you aren't aware of are the Protestants that don't believe in the virginal

birth, much less about a perpetual virgin. You for instance, believe maybe

60% of the Bible, why would I expect you to believe the truth that has been

denied you early, given the next seventy years left to your feel good theology

I'm not surprised at anything you think. I'm not surprised you give so much

credit to the Pope. More credit than Catholics give him..??

 

Matt 1: 25

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his

name JESUS.

 

The verse says Joseph knew her not till, "heos" greek. "Not till" doesn't mean

"did not--untill after." Heos reference the past, never the future.

 

The first born didn't necessarily mean just the first born. It was also a title that

went with the first. It doesn't mean the first of four or five.

 

You tell me Contendah,

They had big families back then, Jack, and Joseph and the FORMER virgin,

Mary, did their part.

 

Read up and get yourself straight on this question:

 

In your mind you believe you're right. You run your typical little bluff and

expect that's all to be said. If you weren't so ignorant you would be easier

to talk to. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, just your everyday run of the mill Jew baby

boy born in a gehtto. I can hear you now, "I don't care, I got mine"........sweet.

Good Nite Irene.............

____

Once more, Jack, since in your inchoate, smoke-screening, vituperative  rambling, you never addressed it.  From my post above:

 

You wrote this:

 

"A Protestant argument that Mary had other children goes against Biblical prophecy that the Messiah, Jesus would be born of a virgin!"

 

My reply, which you ignored:

 

"No rational person could accept this specious, irrational argument!  She was a virgin at the time He was born; thus  He was 'born of a virgin.' It is the Papist notion of a perpetual virginity that you seek to validate by your statement.  That just won't wash."

 

It still won't wash, Jack.  How and from where do you come up with such nonsense?

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

That statement in itself doesn't validate her perpetual virginity, the Bible

 

does, doesn't have anything to do with a Papist notion. The virginal birth

 

was the plan of God and the perpetual virginity was the oath Mary made

 

to the Father long before Joseph entered the picture.

 

 

God honored her oath of celibacy and is pleased with her wish to serve

 

only him throughout her life.That's the reason why Mary was confused

 

as to how that could happen and said, I know not man. And she had no

 

desire to then or ever.

 

 

Why did God choose Joseph? What do we know about him and why

 

was he a good fit in God's plan for the birth of Christ and to live that

 

life having to endure the hardships involved.

 

 

Jack FlashJack FlashOld Faithful

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 

It still won't wash, Jack.  How and from where do you come up with such nonsense?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bible has paired the children you say belong to the Mother of Jesus

to the biological mothers also named Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it say

the son of Mary or Joseph unless it specifically refers to Jesus.

 

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×