Ping!
Who constituted the household of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth? Was Jesus the only child in the family circle; or, if there were other children, in what relation did they stand to Him? The gospel writers often mention His brothers and sisters. Who were they? This question has been in dispute from very early times, and many elaborate essays have been written upon it. Its impartial discussion has been hindered by dogmatic considerations connected with the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother, with denominational issues, and with the canonicity of non-Apostolic epistles. Passing by these for the present, and avoiding, so far as possible, mere conjectures, let us attempt to bring the matter in its more important bearings fairly before us.
Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19). Of the brothers, there seem to have been four who are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (see Mark 6:3). Matthew and Mark mention the sisters, but neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:56, “His sisters, are they not all with us?”), there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently married, and resident at Nazareth. These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all until after the Lord began His ministry and are first mentioned as going with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John 2:12). It is in dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least until the very end of His ministry (John 7:3-10). Most say that they were made believers through His resurrection, as they appear in company with the Apostles (Acts 1:14).
In all the references to the Lord’s brethren several things are noticeable: first, that they are always called brothers and sisters, not cousins or kinsmen; second, that their relationship is always defined with reference to Him, not to Joseph or to Mary; they are always called His brothers and sisters, not sons and daughters of Mary; third, that they always appear in connection with Mary (except in John 7:3) as if her children, members of her household, and under her direction.
Adapted from The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth by Samuel James Andrews.
That would be the Catholic church, not the church of Christ. Jesus had many brothers, James and Judas (authors of epistles) were two of note. Mary was not a perpetual virgin and nothing in scripture supports that assertion.
On a side note, the Catholic church said that the universe rotated around the Earth and that forgiveness of sin could be purchased for an indulgence.
Reminds me of the claim that Peter never married yet scripture speaks of Jesus healing Peter's "mother-in-law!"
Kind of hard to do when you're not married, isn't it.
Scripture speaks of other "brothers" to Jesus, who would be half-brothers and actual sons of Joseph and Mary.
It's tough to let go of tradition from early fathers but to be credible, in an age where bibles abound everywhere and even more than one copy owned by many people.......and read every day and in complete each and every year!
This is probably why the early martyrs died to bring the scriptures to the people and why the church worked so hard in the other way.
The bible said what some people said it said, now we all can read it ourselves, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, interpret the meaning without the help of some clergy, if we desire.
I guess it sucked to be Joseph.
What difference does it make? Does it change anything? The Bible specifically mentions Jesus had brothers and sisters. But whether He did or not, changes nothing. Mary and Joseph were a married couple. It is not unreasonable to assume they consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. Why is it a sine que non that Mary was an eternal virgin? Why is that so important to some? I think in the final analysis it matters not. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is precious gift from God and not an act of defilement. I see no reason why the Lord would deny this gift to Mary and Joseph or to anyone else for that matter. The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply and there is no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph didn’t do just that. It is better to read the Bible as it is written rather to make up theories just because you want to make it conform to some dogma or ideology. I have no problem believing that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage and that other children followed Jesus’s birth. This takes nothing away from the divinity of Jesus. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’s conception. But it doesn’t go any further than that. I don’t know why others do.
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Because He had brothers from after Joseph "Knew" Mary after He was born.
Of course it does. And then, there's that "Immaculate Conception" thing, too.
Surely there's more.
Question: “Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?”
Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.
Recommended Resources: Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll and Logos Bible Software.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html#ixzz3WeHV5SZg
Where in the Bible does one find support for the argument that Mary WAS a perpetual virgin?
It seems obvious then that the people reporting his mother and siblings were waiting for him were being literal--i.e. he had actual literal siblings that were waiting. Otherwise it would make no sense to contrast being a literal sibling with being a spiritual one.
Because there had to be somebody to paint the shroud.
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.
A most convoluted analogy, you wouldn’t carry water very far in that corrupt leaky vessel the holes are many.
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”?
Fathers of the Church
Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403); Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419); Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444); and others.
Teaching of the Universal Church
The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as "ever-virgin."
Protestant Reformers
The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
"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." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. [...] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God." (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary,
"The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."
"This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ."
"He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers."
"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
...as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
"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, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
Even John Wesley, in 1749, wrote:
"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Letter to a Roman Catholic)
Objections
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
1) The Bible frequently speaks of the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
2) A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew's gospel. "He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.