Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by NYer
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.
Read the article?
I don’t see where biblical prophecy concerning Jesus would be compromised if Mary did have more children after Jesus.
Because there had to be somebody to paint the shroud.
Because it answers the question, "Who do you trust?"
I hear you. In order for us to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, we would have to believe that Joseph was a passive wallflower standing in a corner, sleeping in a separate bedroom somewhere. That is a stretch. In a lot of religious artwork, Joseph is often portrayed as an older man. Truth is we know very little about Joseph. He could have been an older man at the time he married Mary. But he could have been a much younger man closer to Mary’s own age. We don’t know and it is pointless to speculate.
God’s plan is for Holy Matrimony and to be fruitful and multiply. God wants us to celebrate life, not celibate life.
Why Does the Bible Say Jesus Had Brothers?
Maybe because he did?
That is my interpretation as well.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_real_mary.html#MARYS%20VIRGINITY
Jesus was the firstborn. She did not “know” her husband until Jesus was born.
Etc.
It’s pretty clear, assuming one is basing their belief on what the bible sez.
Because he had brothers.
The bible clearly says one thing and the (Roman)church says something else. So who wins this? I'll stick with the inerrant Word of God. The concept of perpetual virginity as well as the immaculate conception is entirely an invention of man's highly fallible imagination.
Of course it does. And then, there’s that “Immaculate Conception” thing, too.
And don’t forget that a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
The real question is the most important word in the english language: Why
Why does it matter so much to some that she was ever virgin to the point of denying clear scripture on the subject?
Yes. Mary was speaking in the present perfect tense. She was not speaking in the future tense. Nice try.
A most convoluted analogy, you wouldn’t carry water very far in that corrupt leaky vessel the holes are many.
Regardless that many events in Jesus’ life fulfilled scriptural prophecy concerning the Messiah, the gospels indicate that even Jesus’ apostles didn’t correlate things that they saw Jesus doing to such prophecies. In fact, Luke 24:45 indicates that the risen Jesus had to open their minds to the Scriptures.
So I think that early Christians struggled to make sense out of the Scriptures and things that had happened in Jesus’ life - and they are evidently still struggling, myself included.
Luke 1:34 in my copies of the Bible says (emphasis mine): "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
No reasonable person could argue that her words are some kind of pledge or promise that she will NEVER "know a man".
That would be half-Brothers; same mother different father (Joseph).
_________________________________________
Yes let's see what the Bible has to say...
While there is no mention that Mary was forever a virgin, it does say that after the LORD Jesus Christ was born, Joseph and Mary had sex just as any other legally married couple did in those days..
Whomever would judge Mary or claim she was evil just because she obeyed the order to "multiple"
It does not detract from the importance of Mary just because she was a normal married woman..
Most of the prophets got married too..
Remembering that the King James term "to know" means a man has sex with a woman:
Little clue: "until" means something did happen at a later date..
Parallel Verses Matthew 1:25
New International Version But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
New Living Translation But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
English Standard Version but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
New American Standard Bible but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
King James Bible And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Holman Christian Standard Bible but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.
International Standard Version He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
NET Bible but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua.
GOD'S WORD® Translation He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.
Jubilee Bible 2000 and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus.
King James 2000 Bible And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
American King James Version And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
American Standard Version and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
Douay-Rheims Bible And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Darby Bible Translation and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
English Revised Version and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
Webster's Bible Translation And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS.
Weymouth New Testament but did not live with her until she had given birth to a son. The child's name he called JESUS.
World English Bible and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.
Young's Literal Translation and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.
The main issue I have with this article is this — it mentions a few Biblical passages but neglects to address OTHERS.
I did not see the article mention for instance, Matthew 13:54-57 which specifically says:
54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
Now, it can be argued that James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are his “cousins”.
The only problem I have with that is the Greek ( which the New Testament is written in ) uses the word -— ADELPHOS ( which means “brother” in Greek ). The Latin translation is “Fratres” which also means BROTHERS. So, if these men were his cousins, the Bible would have used the Greek Word — Xaderfos, which IS cousin.
The only way out of this is to SPECULATE that these “brothers” would have been Joseph’s children by another previous woman ( hence, Jesus’ step brothers ), or that Mary and Joseph ADOPTED children (including at least 2 sisters ) after they married.
Well, that’s nice, but since we do not have any reliable historical evidence for this, all of these are but speculation. We do not need to accept this.
Plus, we have this very pesky statement made in Matthew 1:25 translated in most English Bible with either the word consumate, or intercourse):
“But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
The most straightforward understanding of this is THEY HAD INTERCOURSE like a normal husband and wife AFTER Jesus was born.
I guess anybody who wants to, can explain away the most straightforward understanding of the text with other meanings. For me, I stick with the plain reading.
Had the intent been to show the important doctrine of perpetual virginity, why would Matthew not say something line -— “He never consumated their marriage even after she gave birth to her”?
You’re asking the same question I asked. But you were much more concise. I have a theory which I can back up, but don’t want to get too much buried in the weeds, it is better to stick to Scripture as closely as possible without making up unnecessary theories or dogmas. We don’t need to make religion more complicated than it needs to be. I do believe many early Church theologians had issues with women. Some were misogynists who believed that women served only to corrupt men and tempt them into sin. Some had real issues with the act of physical intimacy, even between a husband and wife. This might help explain why they developed this theory of perpetual virgin. They did not WANT to believe that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage, so they developed this yarn that Jesus’s brothers and sisters were actually cousins-—it was a typo in the Bible-—or here’s another whopper-—they were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. Truly weird to the extent some would go to prop up a dogma which truly unnecessary.
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.