Replies

Hello Forest Keeper,

Thank you for the ping. I can see that you are a very attentive reader of Scripture, a critical thinker, and that you would be a good person with whom to study Scripture. I am looking forward to hearing more about what you believe in the future. Unfortunately, I’m short on time, and will not be able participate fully in this discussion at this time. I will, however, do my best to respond to several of your comments.

The whole structure of this passage just screams out at me that the reference is to blood siblings. First, the father is identified. The only possible knowledge the "people" could have had was that Joseph was a blood father. Then, the "people" identify Mary, His blood mother. Then, four individuals are named as His "brothers". Then, some who are unnamed are mentioned as His sisters. I just can't buy that all within the same, single thought, it went from naming the closest relatives to Him (mother and reference to "father") to naming distant relatives, if they were relatives at all.

The Scriptures in question is Matt. 13: 55-56, in which the crowd asks the question about Jesus: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

The question, (upon which a considerable amount of energy has been expended on this thread and elsewhere on Free Republic,) is this: does this disprove the historical tradition of the Christian Church that Mary the mother of Jesus was a perpetual virgin? Is it not reasonable to read this and assume that because this common translation states that Jesus had brothers and sisters, that his mother must have had sex after the birth of our Lord? Doesn't this passage conclusively prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? These are all reasonable questions. In fact, some might even go so far as to insinuate that these two verses single handedly discredit Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, thereby demonstrating the superiority of modern Bible Based Christianity to the Apostolic Church. In fact, I can't think of any other reason why so much time and energy would be dedicated by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to making the point that Mary the Mother of our Savior had an active sex life after the birth of the Christ. It is, after all, a question which has no bearing on the theology of salvation for these two movements. From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, the question is entirely one that concerns someone else’s theology. (When last I was on FR, someone pinged me about half a dozen times to tell me that "Jesus and Mary had sex." According to this person, she knew this because, "God said so."

Basically, Forest Keeper, none of us believe that Jesus had any full siblings, because they would have had God as their father and Mary as their mother. The discussion boils down to whether the word "adelphoi," translated here as "brothers,"; should be interpreted to mean half-brothers, step-brothers, or perhaps cousins, as it sometimes does in Greek.

So let's look at the brothers of Jesus and see if we can answer this question. The Scripture you quoted above lists four brothers of Jesus, namely, James, Joseph (aka Joses,) Simon and Judas.

Let's start with Jesus'; brother, James. Who is he? Well, he must be James the brother of our Lord. " “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Gal 1:18, 19) Here St. Paul tells us that he met James the brother of our Lord, and that this James was an Apostle, along with Peter. Later in the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul tells us: " “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:9) Here we see that James is “a Pillar” a leader in the community on a par with Peter and the Apostle John. Other verses in the New Testament underscore that James was a person who had significant authority and who was respected in the early Church. For example, he speaks at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 to establish practices for gentile Christians. So James the brother of our Lord is an Apostle and a Pillar. Now there were two Apostles by the name of James. James the brother of John, and son of Zebedee, (not of Joeseph,) also surnamed with his brother John by Jesus, as “the sons of Thunder,” and the other James. Since James the brother of John and son of Zebedee was martyred at an early date (Acts 12:12), we can make a reasonable guess that James the brother of our Lord and “pillar” is the other James, the James who addressed the council of Jerusalem, commonly known as “James the less.” The lists of the Apostles in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell us whose son he was: " “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” (Matt 10: 2-4, see also Luke 6: 14 and Mark 3: 17) So the Gospels concur that James, “the brother of our Lord” was actually not the son of Joeseph, but rather of Alphaeus. Elsewhere, they identify him as the son of a woman named Mary, but a Mary who is not identified as the mother of Jesus, but rather as the mother of “James the less.” "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salo'me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15: 40,41.) The Evangelist Luke also identifies her as the Mother of James in Luke 25:10. He separately identifies Mary the mother of Jesus as “the mother of Jesus” in Acts 1: 14. So James “the brother of our Lord” turns out to be the son of Alphaeus and a different Mary. This indicates that at least one of the people listed as a brother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55, 56 was not actually his full brother, but rather a close relative.

James the brother of our Lord has a different mother and father. Furthermore, this “Mary the mother of James” also has another son named Joses. "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salo'me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15: 40,41.) Forest Keeper, that’s my best understanding of “James and Joses,” from Matthew 13:55,56. They are not the children of Mary, the mother of Jesus. In fact, cousins to Jesus sounds like a reasonable guess.

What about the other two, Simon and Judas? Well, Scripture nowhere tells us that either Joesph or Mary had other children, and we have just seen that the first two “brothers” listed had different parents, so it’s possible that these two gentlemen also have different parents. In fact, we can make a reasonable guess regarding who Judas is. Perhaps Judas is Jude, “the brother of James”? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:” (Jude 1:1) So here we see the author of the Epistle of Jude identifying himself as a brother to James. James who? How about James the “pillar.” James who addressed the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, James the brother of our Lord? The first question we want to ask ourselves is, why does Jude identify himself as the brother of James, and not the brother of our Lord? Now, if we believe that the Epistle of Jude is actually Apostolic, the author would be Jude Thadeus, listed as one of the twelve Apostles. (We don’t actually know who any of the authors of Scripture are. We take it on the faith of the Church that they are actually legitimate.) If we look at the list of Apostles, we see that Jude Thadeus is actually the son of James. My best guess, Forest Keeper, is that the author of Jude is actually the son of James the less. This may or may not be the same individual listed as one of the “brothers of Jesus” in Matthew 13: 55, 56. But since, as we have seen that James the brother of our Lord, also listed in Matthew 13:55, 56 is in fact James the Apostle and pillar, it is a reasonable guess to say that Jude the “brother” of James is the same person as “Judas” the brother of James and Jesus. According to the lists of the Apostles in the synoptic Gospels, this individual is actually the son of James, not of Joesph and Mary.

Matt. 1:24-25 : When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Here is the other verse used to prove that Mary and Joseph had sex. What the verse does not say, however, is that Joesph and Mary had sex. The point of the passage is to convey to the reader that Jesus was born to a virgin. That is to say, something extraordinary happened in the birth of Jesus, and this something opens the possibility that Jesus is divine. The verse is taken beyond it’s original intent to argue that Joseph must have had sex with the mother of our Lord. Those who assert that this is proof positive of a sexual relationship actually read the word ‘til’ or “until” to mean “until after.” That’s a reasonable inference, but so also is the interpretation that it means prior to the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations, which is all that the passage intends to convey.

The Scriptures nowhere tell us that Mary had sexual relations with a man, nor do they tell us that she had other biological children. It is reasonable to assume that, because she married Joseph, the two would have had sexual relations. However, this belief is precisely that, an assumption, and not Scripture. It is also reaonsalbe to to interpret Matt 1:24, 25 as implying (not stating) that Mary and Joesph may have had sex after the birth of the Redeemer. If they did, in fact, have other children, it is hard to believe that Mary would have gone to live with the Apostle John after the death of Christ. Why not just stay with her own children? Also, where were these other half dozen children during the finding in the temple? Scripture makes no mention of them, but only says that after Mary and Joeseph left their kinsfolk in the caravan, they said, "your father and I have been searching for you with great anxiety." Lastly, there is the quesiton of scandal and hypocrosy in the founding of the Church. If the Epistle of James is Apostolic, then the author is James the less. If tthe men mentioned in Matthew 13:55, 56 are Christ's brothers, then James preaches that true religion before God is to care for the widow and the orphan in their affliction, but he himself did not take care of his own widowed mother.

Scripture , is silent on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. It neither directly supports nor refutes that doctrine. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, the belief has been handed down since the earliest times that Mary remained a virgin perpetually, as did her Son. There is a historical witness to this belief that dates to the earliest centuries of the Christian era, and the Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine and St Jerome energetically attacked heretics who claimed otherwise. As a Catholic, that is sufficient enough for me to believe it.

The most important argument, however, is found in the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is anyone else except Jesus called the ''son" of Mary. He is always pointed out as her Son. Nor is she ever called the mother of anyone else. She is always referred to as the mother of JESUS.

“I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I'm trying to read every post so I am frequently a few days behind. Thank you very much for your response and welcome back to FR! :)”

Thank you for the warm welcome, Forest Keeper, you are a welcome addition to the religious discussion on Free Republic. Don’t worry about the slow responses, mine will probably be very slow as well. In fact, I will have to drop out of the conversation periodically. Not to worry, I’m sure I can catch you around post 12,000. ;-) I expect to have a few more minutes this evening, and will see if I can respond to a few of your other points. Hope you are having an enjoyable spring evening.

-iq

Hello IQ -

Thank you for your very kind words and for your most thorough and complete answer. :)

In fact, some might even go so far as to insinuate that these two verses [Matt. 13:55-56] single handedly discredit Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, ... In fact, I can't think of any other reason why so much time and energy would be dedicated by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to making the point that Mary the Mother of our Savior had an active sex life after the birth of the Christ. It is, after all, a question which has no bearing on the theology of salvation for these two movements.

Well, I would never be one to think that an honest disagreement about a couple of verses like these would mean the downfall of a faith. So I'm not in that camp. :) I don't think of this as being "core" theology on either side. But I do find it a very interesting topic, so I enjoy debating it, and learning what others think and why. I think that if there are some people out there who make a federal case out of this, that my "guess" would be that the real issue is one of "scripture versus Tradition", generally.

(When last I was on FR, someone pinged me about half a dozen times to tell me that "Jesus and Mary had sex." According to this person, she knew this because, "God said so.")

LOL! I'll call Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. This has "Da Vinci Code II" written all over it! :) Come to think about it, perhaps this person was thinking of Da Vinci Code I, and the other Mary. I hate that book. :)

[On who is "James" in Matt. 13:55-56:] So the Gospels concur that James, “the brother of our Lord” was actually not the son of Joeseph, but rather of Alphaeus.

But that's only in a two-James world! :) James was a common name, why couldn't there have been three of them (or even four)? We could have the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, the Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (James the Less), and the "later" Apostle James, the son of Mary and Joseph, and half-brother of Jesus.

I see your tie between identifying James in Gal. 1:18-19 as an Apostle, and then listing all the Apostles named "James" from the original 12. That makes perfect sense. But we know that the original 12 named Apostles did not constitute an exhaustive list. Not only did Paul come later, but wasn't Matthias also named as a "new" Apostle? I think some also consider Barnabas to be an Apostle. I would submit for consideration that James, the half-brother of Jesus was a "third" James and was just such a late-coming Apostle to the scene. I do think this is the same James in Gal. 1:19 (the first reference to James, half-brother of Jesus, as an Apostle), and in Acts 15 (James, son of Zebedee was already dead [chap. 12], and James the Less may not have had the stature to lead an entire council.), and the author of the Book of James. My little theory "could" be supported by the following

1 Cor. 15:5-8 : ... 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

To me, this clearly indicates a third James, since it does not say "then to the rest of the Apostles". At the time referenced in this passage, Paul, like James, brother of Jesus, was not yet an Apostle. That is why James and Paul are listed separately and apart from "all the Apostles".

If Mary, mother of James the Less, also had a son named Joses, I'm not sure that is proof of anything either way, since there could have been any number of people with that name.

Perhaps Judas is Jude, “the brother of James”? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:” (Jude 1:1) So here we see the author of the Epistle of Jude identifying himself as a brother to James. James who? How about James the “pillar.” James who addressed the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, James the brother of our Lord?

Yes, to everything here. If I'm right about James, then this "Jude" would also be a half-brother of Jesus.

The first question we want to ask ourselves is, why does Jude identify himself as the brother of James, and not the brother of our Lord?

One explanation would be that Jude realized the divinity of our Lord, and did not feel worthy to refer to Him as a "sibling" in the normal human sense. Instead, Jude refers to himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ", just as James does. This indicates to me that Jude did recognize the divinity of Jesus.

Now, if we believe that the Epistle of Jude is actually Apostolic, the author would be Jude Thadeus, listed as one of the twelve Apostles.

I don't think that is necessarily so in view of above. Others were considered Apostles later, although I do not know if this Jude actually was considered an Apostle. If he was a blood brother of Jesus and he "was sent", then he would appear, at least, to qualify.

But since, as we have seen that James the brother of our Lord, also listed in Matthew 13:55, 56 is in fact James the Apostle and pillar, it is a reasonable guess to say that Jude the “brother” of James is the same person as “Judas” the brother of James and Jesus.

It's pretty funny that I can truly agree with absolutely everything you are saying here, yet we are talking about two completely different things. :)

The point of the passage [Matt. 1:24-25] is to convey to the reader that Jesus was born to a virgin.

Well, I suppose so, and given the immediately preceding verses, I would take 24-25 to be sort of insurance verses against sex during pregnancy. :) The question I ask is: What is the reasonable implication from these verses?

You stated well my belief that since they were married at that time, that "until" meant until the birth, and thereafter they would have a normal marriage. The counter I have seen to this is that "until" is really like the "unto" used at the end of Matthew when Jesus says He will be with them unto the very end of the age. The argument says that since Jesus would be with them even after that, there is no future assumption or change after the timing element is met (the end of the age).

I disagree with this idea based on the relative contexts of both situations. To me, in the context of what Jesus said, it would be completely counterintuitive for anyone to think that Jesus would be with them unto the end of the age, and then abandon them. That wouldn't make sense to anyone, and I doubt that anyone hearing Jesus say that, or anyone reading about it later, would have come to that conclusion. In this case, the "normal" state simply continues.

In the case of Matt. 1, however, just the opposite is true. Joseph and Mary were man and wife. Their "normal" state would be to be living as man and wife. It makes perfect sense that scripture tells us that they abstained from sex until Jesus was born, that was reasonable and necessary for reasons also plainly given. However, once the requirements were fulfilled, it makes much more sense to me that they would have gone INTO a "normal" state of marriage. It would be counterintuitive for them NOT to have done so. I think the word "until" is the confirming signal for this. It means that the "abnormal" state turns into a "normal" state. To me, this information is useful to the reader, and worth a verse. I see this as the more reasonable implication.

The Scriptures nowhere tell us that Mary had sexual relations with a man, nor do they tell us that she had other biological children.

Well, the scriptures DO say that, but it is a matter of debate as to the interpretation. I would say that the "plain meaning" would strongly favor my side, leaving it to others to prove it wrong. The actual "words" really are there. So, if I said that Paul actually had a wife and 5 kids, and you said that it was nowhere in scripture, then it would be a slam dunk that you were right and all of the burden would be on me to deliver something.

If they did, in fact, have other children, it is hard to believe that Mary would have gone to live with the Apostle John after the death of Christ. Why not just stay with her own children?

A perfectly reasonable question. My personal opinion is, apart from any research, that there were two reasons why John got this job, and not Jesus' half-brothers, James and Jude.

One is that John was the one whom Jesus loved. He was also picked as one of the twelve, unlike either of Jesus' blood brothers. This tells me that both James and Jude did not have faith in Jesus early on. (No problem, they eventually came around.) But Jesus knew that John had been there for Him from the beginning, so it makes perfect sense to me that He would pick the best candidate, regardless of the tradition of picking a blood brother. (Jesus broke such traditions several times.)

The other reason John got the job was that He was THERE. :) As Jesus was dying on the cross, all the other Apostles had fled. Only John was there as an Apostle. That shows tremendous loyalty to me. It is also evidence that John would be the perfect choice to whom Jesus would entrust His mother.

If the men mentioned in Matthew 13:55, 56 are Christ's brothers, then James preaches that true religion before God is to care for the widow and the orphan in their affliction, but he himself did not take care of his own widowed mother.

If I'm following you, then I am assuming that you are assuming that Joseph has died by this time? If that's right, then my answer would be that James was never asked to take care of Mary, his mother. He wasn't an Apostle at that time, he wasn't there at the crucifixion, and he may not have even believed that Jesus was the Christ yet. By my reasoning, John was a far superior choice at the time.

This has been a very interesting discussion so far. Thank you again for your post. :)