Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
VictorClaveau.com ^ | 2004 | Victor R. Claveau

Posted on 11/03/2009 9:42:30 AM PST by GonzoII

The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

 

There is absolutely ho historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (which necessarily includes her virginity after the birth of Christ) has been so deeply rooted in Catholic Tradition from the very beginning, that the Fathers of the Church instinctively and vigorously rose to its defense every time early heretics questioned it. Among the many witnesses that could be mentioned in this connection are: Origen, St. Epheaem, St. Hilary, St. Zeno, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many others. The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin also accepted the Catholic doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.

Mt.13:55, and Mk. 6:3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas. But Mt. 27:56, says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there. So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that – unless we suppose these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph (Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.

Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other two, Simon and Judas.

Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.

The words “brother” or “sister” were defined by their use.

The Hebrew and Aramaic ah was used for various types of relations. Hebrew had no word for cousin. They could say ben-dod, which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as “the son of the brother of his mother” or, “the son of the sister of his mother”.

Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:27-31) is called his brother in Gen. 13:8 and 14:14-16. Certainly, the Greek language does have words for cousins and other relatives, but the Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT -- abbreviated LXX) uses Greek adelphos, brother, for Lot - who as mentioned above, was really a nephew, so that objection doesn’t prove the case.

Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is especially true with St. Paul. And there is strong evidence that St. Luke at some points was translating Hebrew documents.

Mt. 1:25 – “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus”. Non-Catholics like to point to two words here, “until” and “firstborn”.

Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated. However this was not always the case. In Dt. 34:6, Moses was buried, “and to this day no one knows where the grave is”. That was true in the day of the writer of Dt.; it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1, as interpreted by Jesus Himself (Mt.22; 42-46), “The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” Of course, Jesus was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic Psalm, says that in his days “peace will abound until the moon is no more.” Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had no son until the day of her death. Of course, she did not have one after that either! In Mt.11:23, our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, “it would have lasted until the present day.” Had it lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20, Jesus promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world, does that mean He will desert us in eternity. In Romans 8:22, St. Paul says that all creation groans, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God until Paul’s day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13, the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself to reading, exhortation and teaching “until I come.” He did not mean Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come. There are more, but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.

Jesus is called firstborn in Luke 2:7 (and also in Mt 1:25, if we take the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew bekor, which chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf. Biblica 11, 1930, 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: “In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.

There are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady had other children. The decisive reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her aei-parthenos = “Ever-virgin.”

According to Papias [AD second century] – “Mary, the mother of the Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the less and Joseph, wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands” (The Fragments of Papias).

     Rather than using the word “brothers” it would be more accurate to use the word “brethren.” Any way you look at it, Mary, the mother of Jesus, had only one child natural child. The rest of us are her children by adoption.

 

© 2004 – Victor R. Claveau

 

Part or all of this article may be reproduced without obtaining permission as long as the author is cited.

 

"For as a virgin she conceived,

as a virgin she gave birth,

a virgin she remained."

-St. Augustine: Sermons, 52. (5th cent.)

 

 

webmaster  www.evangelizationstation.com

Copyright © 2004 Victor Claveau. All Rights Reserved



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: 1tim47; catholic; christ; christology; jesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-280 next last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
"Is there any historical evidence that Mary’s perpetual virginity was taught during the Early Church Apostolic Age?

Here's what the successors of the Apostles taught in the first centuries after Christ:

The Church Fathers: Mary is Ever-virgin

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat." Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).

"[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit..." Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin" Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).

"But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin." Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

"Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son." Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free." Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

"Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin's is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin." Peter Chrysoslogus, Sermon 117, (A.D. 432).

"And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.' The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained." Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), On the Feast of the Nativity, Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461).

"The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born' means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till' signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection." John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).

 Top

 


81 posted on 11/03/2009 11:58:06 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

That’s OK.

The entire “virgin” birth, let alone forever-virginity, is no where in Jewish tradition.

It’s merely that the Messiah would be (will be, if Jewish) born of a “very young woman” to be literal about it.

(A virgin birth is not contradictory per se, IMHO, but not easily consistent with the royal line of David, as that is paternal. Regardless, it’s just not the Jewish tradition of the Messiah.)


82 posted on 11/03/2009 11:58:49 AM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

>>Why did Mary ask how it would happen if she was already betrothed?<<

Luke 1:34”How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Read the part after the word “since”.


83 posted on 11/03/2009 11:59:58 AM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Show me where I can find that in the Bible.


84 posted on 11/03/2009 12:02:01 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"This question/conversation only makes sense unless Mary was a virgin and planning on continuing to be one.<< Seriously?"

Yeah, seriously, how else does it make sense, the Angel was talking in the future tense; she had know plans of knowing a man.

85 posted on 11/03/2009 12:03:52 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"Show me where I can find that in the Bible."

Show me where it has to be in the Bible?

86 posted on 11/03/2009 12:05:09 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

she had know plans = had “no plans”


87 posted on 11/03/2009 12:05:53 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Infatuation - not a strange choice of words at all.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
A foolish, unreasoning, or extravagant passion or attraction.

Other definitions use similar language.

I chose the word intentionally and find it most appropriate.


88 posted on 11/03/2009 12:06:00 PM PST by BlueNgold (Have we crossed the line from Govt. in righteous fear of the People - to a People in fear of Govt??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

She did not say “I will be a virgin”. She said, “I am a virgin”.

Besides, none of us were there. We only know what God, in his infinite wisdom, allowed to be in the Bible. I’ll go on what I read there. It is possible that she was a virgin her entire life. It is HIGHLY unlikely. And since no Bible tenets are impacted by it in the least, it is an utter irrelevance. It is like discussing what her favorite color dress was, with virtually NO evidence to go on.

Keep in mind, I am talking about AFTER Jesus birth.


89 posted on 11/03/2009 12:08:31 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

>>Show me where it has to be in the Bible?<<

Revelation 22:18
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Don’t get me wrong. The church “fathers”, Joel Olsteen, or the president of the Mormon church can say anything they want. I get to choose whether or not I agree with them. And I base that on what is IN the Bible and the personality of the God with whom I have a personal relationship.


90 posted on 11/03/2009 12:10:50 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
Why would she marry a man but never consecrate it?

Perhaps because if she was not married she would hae been stoned to death.

91 posted on 11/03/2009 12:11:37 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (a wild-eyed, exclusionist, birther religio-beast -- Daily Kos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"She did not say “I will be a virgin”. She said, “I am a virgin”.

The angel said "you will conceive" putting her mind in the future.

92 posted on 11/03/2009 12:11:59 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

That’s kind of funny. It reminds me of some of the stuff in The Life of Brian.

Awful movie, but it does make some interesting commentary on people wildly misunderstanding events to support their own suppositions.


93 posted on 11/03/2009 12:13:26 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
So then we agree, Mary is part of God's Divine Plan to Save Humankind...by being the Mother of God

That would seem to make her pretty darn Special, No?

Hard to defend the concept that He'd "just pick someone else" since that would make His plan faulty, which is impossible.

94 posted on 11/03/2009 12:13:26 PM PST by xhrist ("You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. " - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Hey Jewbacca (great name!), not sure your post 82 is meant for my post 55? Or am I just not getting it?

Freegards


95 posted on 11/03/2009 12:14:08 PM PST by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold

Well then you’re not describing me or any Catholic I know.


96 posted on 11/03/2009 12:14:28 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

>>The angel said “you will conceive” putting her mind in the future.<<

Yes, and she said “I am”. I get the feeling we are missing something here. That said, it certainly is not enough to even suggest that Mary, a normal flesh and blood young woman, would have “meant” that she fully intended to be a virgin her entire life.


97 posted on 11/03/2009 12:15:09 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Sola Scriptura is a false tradition of men.
98 posted on 11/03/2009 12:15:38 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xhrist

>>So then we agree, Mary is part of God’s Divine Plan to Save Humankind...by being the Mother of God

That would seem to make her pretty darn Special, No? <<

Right up there with Pilate and Judas, yes.


99 posted on 11/03/2009 12:15:57 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: xhrist

>>Hard to defend the concept that He’d “just pick someone else” since that would make His plan faulty, which is impossible.<<

Correct. Being God, he knew the answer before he asked. The hypothetical question does not fit. That is why I agreed it was unbiblical.


100 posted on 11/03/2009 12:17:14 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-280 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson