Brothers and Sisters?

Maybe Peter's wife asked them not to. It's as good as any explanation, wouldn't you say?

Well, the Bible doesn't say she didn't so hey, whatever you want to make on it is as good as anything else.

Just find some old (forged) document of Ignatius, that the Catholic church loves to depend on so much, and you're good to go.

Again, your comment "Mormonism did not start Joseph Smith" makes no sense and does not address the statement in the post you replies.

Go to post 108 and then read post 109 responding.

However, to lump him under the Protestant category is not accurate on your part.

The reference was to Joseph Smith. He was under Protestant/Evangelical influence from the Second Great Awakening. He wrote about it. There were no Mormons when heard and responded to the Protestant/Evangelical preaching. He became conscious of his sin, read his Bible and sought which church he should join. He was a searching Protestant/Evangelical who rejected what was available and ended up starting his own religious community (whose doctrines are incompatible with Orthodox Christianity).

“My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?”

And I should add I like and respect Dolly Parton. And out Dollypartonesque hills.

LOL, somehow, I knew this was going to come up. The problem is, I only see one. 😱

Ever learning (and defending fables), never coming to a saving faith in God's Grace. Work work work, Catholic, you aren't striving hard enough to obtain ...

The BIBLE says Mary and JESUS's BROTHERS came to where HE was teaching and asked to have a word with HIM. But you choose to twist the plain meaning so it fits the Mariology demigoddess status your 'other religion' has fabricated. It's on you, GOD is not mocked.

WOW! Someone has been doing her homework! Happy Mother’s Day, Nana.

With the ancient and classical Semitic languages, and the Koine Greek when translating the Semitic languages, the usage is quite different.

No...The New Testament was not written in Semitic languages and translated into Greek......It was written in Koine Greek...

And as metmon has pointed out and posted dozens of times, the translation of the Koine Greek scriptures into English is well known by biblical scholars...

Your own Catholic religion knows Elizabeth was a 'cousin' and not a brethren as were Jesus' brothers and sisters...

Douay-Rheims Bible
And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:

And on top of that, the Semitic translators of the Koine Greek knew enough about it to know Elizabeth was a cousin, not a brethren...

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And behold, Elizabeth your cousin also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her, who is called barren,”

Your argument is nonsensical...Every context of the topic in the scriptures shows us that Mary had other children...Every statement whether by God or the writers of the scriptures show us that Mary had more children than just Jesus...

And yet you continue on with the fallacy...

More straw man diversions.

Keep track of who you are posting to, I DID not post a comment attributed to me ie the use of italics.

Christianity did not start popes.
Or ever have them.
Jesus was not a Catholic.

Keep track of who you are posting to, I DID not post a comment attributed to me ie the use of italics.

I know; you inserted yourself in a thread and I explained it to you.

“And as you know, nobody is called a “son of Mary” in the whole NT “

Not only that, no one is called Mother of God in the whole NT!

Thanks.

Making the point even stronger, other "offspring" are identified as the community of believers, which includes, if I am not mistaken, you and me.

You seem to be avoiding my prior question to you.

I'll repost again for consideration.

46While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50“For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:46-50 NASB

In this passage it's one of two understandings.

In v46-47 the Jews have identified His mother and His brothers. They understand this is His family.

The context can only mean one understanding. The brothers mentioned here are Mary's other children.

Now, if you want to try and say that in vv48-50 that brothers means all the followers of Christ and that He had no biological brothers then you have to say that all the moms following Him means Jesus had no biological mother...and you know who that means.

The Catholic cannot have it both ways.

The people in vv46-47 are either Mary and His brothers or they are not and only mean those who follow Him as noted in vv48-50.

Are you prepared to say that?

Ya caught me. But am I wrong?

At least I’m not a Mormon Prophet claiming infallibility of some Old Testament anointing.

Not only the LXX, but other Greek translations of the OT as well, use adelphoi (brothers) to express nephews, cousind, and even non-kinship ally relationships. These are all translated from Hebrew.

As for the NT,the originals of the Gospels were probably Koine Greek (though that's disputed with Matthew), and yet broader definitions persist. For instance, in 1 Corinthians,Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brothers at the same time. These were of course not children of Mary.

James is called the Lord's brother, but the only Jsmeses we know of in Jesus' circle were identified as sons of Alpheus ,Zebedee, or Clopas. But unless I am mistaken, nobody claims that Mary of Nazareth --- Jesus' mother--- was married to Alphaeus, Zebedee, or Clopas.

Matt 27:56 identifies "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" as one of the women who ministered to Jesus, not as His mother. She is evidently the wife of Clopas.

So you have an unresolved problem here, in that the NT authors, who were native Aramaic speakers, continued to often use the term "brothers" the way they used the term in Aramaic, even when they were writing Greek. Jesus did, too, to mean somebody close to you (as in Matt. 5:22-24, 7:3-5, 12:50,18:15, and many other places in the NT. Another example: in the Herod-Herodias marriage, she is said to have been the wife of Herod's brother Philip, but Philip was in fact Herod's half-brother.

The churches at the time were not confused by this, and didn't see any reason why this would refute their conviction about Mary being ever-virgin. It wasn't until the 1500's-1600's that English and German scholars far removed from the cultural and linguistic environment of ancient Judea and Galilee, relied on academic assumptions which sometimes conflicted with vernacular Biblical usage.

No problem. Is Jesus God?

Shake the dust off your feet.

Mary would be appalled at this nonsensical veneration of her, and the counterfeit application of some supernatural gift of “ever-virginity”.

God would certainly have foretold of the need or function or position of an “Ever Virgin” in the OT... but He didn’t.

Nuts/nonsense/necromancy, but mostly idolatry.

You continue to avoid my posts to you....wondering why...but I think I know why.

James is called the Lord's brother, but the only Jsmeses we know of in Jesus' circle were identified as sons of Alpheus ,Zebedee, or Clopas. But unless I am mistaken, nobody claims that Mary of Nazareth --- Jesus' mother--- was married to Alphaeus, Zebedee, or Clopas.

Patently false information you've posted....and you should know that.

So you have an unresolved problem here, in that the NT authors, who were native Aramaic speakers, continued to often use the term "brothers" the way they used the term in Aramaic, even when they were writing Greek.

Of which you offer zero proof.

The NT authors knew the Kione Greek as it was the business language of the Roman Empire.

The problem is not unresolved as you claim...well, perhaps it is for the Roman Catholic...but not everyone else.

Awaiting your answer to my post.

The people in vv46-47 are either Mary and His brothers or they are not and only mean those who follow Him as noted in vv48-50.:

In the scriptures the relationships are in reference to Him, not her. There is no mention of other "children of Mary," "sons of Mary," or "daughters of Mary."

The only time blessed Mary has any other children is at the cross.

Am I related to the Messiah as a mother or brethren too ?
Have I been to the cross too ?
Am I the disciple the Messiah loves too ?
Is blessed Mary my mother too ?

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

...

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Matthew, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses forty six to fifty,
John, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses twenty five to twenty seven,

You, like mrs. d are ignoring the primary question I asked. I understand why. Ya’ll freepmail and come up with an answer.

I can't help but think that IF Mary had experienced a supernatural childbirth when she delivered Jesus something would have been mentioned in the gospels about it. We know the Holy Spirit was who inspired the writers to say what they did so surely, as the miracle of Jesus' conception was spoken about, Mary not giving birth as a normal human being would have been stated, as well.

Not only that, but if Mary remained a virgin her entire life - though married to Joseph - and never had other children, then that would have been mentioned, too, rather than the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus (those specific words used in the Greek), don't you think? We know that the Apostle John took Mary into his home and cared for her, yet he didn't say a word about either her life long virginity vows, the details of her death or anything about her miraculous bodily assumption to heaven - and he was still alive when she died.

I think this is just another one of those disputable matters that Catholics make a big deal out of when Scripture is silent and then criticize others as "heretics" for not accepting their views. Like Paul cautioned, we should learn to not go beyond that which is written and not become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

The problem is not unresolved as you claim...well, perhaps it is for the Roman Catholic...but not everyone else.

The Greek Orthodox, who have known, studied, and used their own language for centuries affirm it too.

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God

Fr. John Hainsworth

Last year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase "ever-virgin" with reference to the Lord's Mother. Someone asked, "Do you actually mean that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth?" I said yes, that is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The look of surprised bemusement on the audience's faces said it all. The miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality? That's impossible!

The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that of course it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest. The Orthodox have no difficulty, then, considering the ever-virginity of Mary a nonnegotiable fact and its alternative unthinkable. But why should this necessarily be so? Why insist on the idea that Mary (who was married, after all) did not go on to have a "normal" married life?

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

Set Apart to God

To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. Leaving aside for a moment the complete uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, recall that it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses "separated himself" from his wife Zipporah when he returned from his encounter with God in the burning bush. Another rabbinical tradition, concerning the choosing of the elders of Israel in Numbers 7, relates that after God had worked among them, one man exclaimed, "Woe to the wives of these men!" I cannot imagine that the fellow to the left of him replied, "What do you mean, Joe?" The meaning of the statement would have been immediately apparent.

Whether these stories relate actual events or not, they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ. That culture understood virginity and abstinence not as a mere rejection of something enjoyable--To what end?-- But as something naturally taken up by one whose life has been consecrated by the Lord's Spirit to be a vessel of salvation to His people. The intervening centuries of social, religious, and philosophical conditioning have made us suspicious of virginity and chastity in a way that no one in the Lord's time would have been.

Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone? Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion? Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).

And then there is Joseph's character to consider. Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!

The Lord's "Brothers"

There are several questions based on Scripture that are often raised by those skeptical about the doctrine of ever-virginity. The first of these involves the passages which state explicitly that the Lord had "brothers." There are nine such passages: Matthew 12:46-47 and 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32 and 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12 and 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; and 1-Corinthians 9:5. The Greek word used in all these passages and generally translated "brother" is adelphos.

The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Apostles (abbreviated LXX) includes specific words for "cousin," notably adelphinos and anepsios, but they are rarely used. The less specific word adelphos, which can mean "brother," "cousin," "kinsman," "fellow believer," or "fellow countryman," is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27-31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14-16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.

Is there anywhere a clear statement in the Scriptures establishing Jesus brothers as literally the children of Mary? In fact, there is not. Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers. The formula for speaking of the Lord's family is "His mother and His brothers." In Mark the possessive, anavtou"of Him," is inserted before both "His mother" and "His brothers," making a clear distinction. In Acts 1:14, the separation is more pronounced: "Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers." Some manuscripts use the conjunctive syn "along with, in company with," so that the text reads "Mary the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers." In any case, Mary is never identified as the mother of Jesus' brothers (nor they as her children), but only as the Mother of Jesus.

The Meaning of "Until"

Another objection to the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word "until" or "till" in Matthew 1:25: ". . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Whereas in English the word "until" necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42-46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church! The use of "until" in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not "know" each other "until" the birth. In this context "until" is really synonymous with "before." If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense. That is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary's chaste relationship changed after the birth then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple's later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least.

The Meaning of "Firstborn"

Another objection might be based on the word "firstborn," prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English "firstborn" usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a "second-born" Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly "first in all things." To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be "heir," which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by "firstborn."

"Woman, Behold Thy Son"

Also, consider the moving passage from St. John's Gospel in which our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her? Jewish custom dictated that the care of a mother would fall to the second born if the firstborn died, and if the widow had no other child she would be left to take care of herself. Since she is without other children, her Son gives her into the care of the beloved disciple. The Women at the Cross and the Identity of the Lord's Brothers. Who exactly are the "brothers of the Lord" if not fellow sons of Mary His mother? (Here, I am gratefully indebted to Fr. Lawrence Farley's article, "The Women at the Cross." [publication ref?]) A close study of the women at the Cross in Matthew 27:55, 56 yields a plausible answer. These women were said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) the mother of the sons of Zebedee;
(3) Mary the Mother of James and Joseph. In the parallel passage in Mark 15:40, 41, the women are said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Salome;
(3) Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
In John 19:25, the women are listed as: (1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Christ's Mother;
(3) His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas.
For our purposes we should focus on the woman who is referred to by St. Matthew as "Mary the mother of James and Joseph," by St. Mark as "Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses [a variant of Joseph]," and by St. John in his list as "His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas."

Note that in Matthew the names "James and Joseph" were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions "Mary mother of James and Joseph" in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these "James and Joseph" as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord's "brothers" are "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas." Similarly, in St. Mark's Gospel, "James and Joses" are mentioned as if we already know who "James and Joses" are, which in fact we do from Mark 6:3, where Christ's "brothers" are listed as "James and Joses and Judas and Simon."

It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord's "brothers," "James and Joses." Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord's Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!

If it is the case, as the Scriptures suggest, that Mary wife of Clopas is the same as the mother of James and Joseph, we have the following conclusion: the Theotokos had a "sister," married to Clopas, who was the mother of James and Joseph, our Lord's "brothers." Here, the question ought to immediately arise concerning the Theotokos' relationship to this Mary: What kind of "sister" is she?

Hegisippus, a Jewish Christian historian who, according to Eusebius, "belonged to the first generation after the apostles" and who interviewed many Christians from that apostolic community for his history, relates that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, foster-father of Christ (apud. Eusb. Eccl. H. iv:22). If this is so (and Hegisippus is generally acknowledged as fully reliable), then "Mary wife of Clopas" was the Virgin Mary's "sister" in that she was her sister-in-law.

The puzzle therefore fits together. St. Joseph married the Virgin Theotokos, who gave birth to Christ, her only Child, preserving her virginity and having no other children. St. Joseph's brother, Clopas, also married a woman named Mary, who had the children James and Joseph (along with Judas and Simon, and daughters also). These children were our Lord's "brothers" (using the terminology of Israel, which as we have seen made no distinction between brothers and cousins but referred to all as "brothers").

St. Matthew and St. Mark, focusing on our Lord's family (Matthew 13:53ff and Mark 6:1ff), naturally refer to Clopas wife Mary as "the mother of James and Joseph (Joses)." St. John, on the other hand, focuses on our Lord's Mother (cf. John 2:1ff) and just as naturally refers to this same woman as "His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas." But it is apparent that it is one and the same woman being referred to by all. This reconstruction is the best that can be made (though others exist, they all contain serious weaknesses) given both the Scriptural and historical evidence.

Why Mary's Ever-Virginity is Important

Some would say that even if it can be proved, Mary's ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level. In its essence, the Orthodox Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our message, our reason for being, the very life of our life. Teaching about Mary is really meant for the initiates, those who have already accepted the Gospel and have committed themselves to Christ and to service in His Church.

This is so because what Mary teaches us about the Incarnation of the Word of God requires that we first accept the Incarnation. Once we do, then her virginity not only after birthgiving, but also before and indeed the character of her entire life become in themselves a wellspring of teaching about life in Christ and the glory of God. Indeed, she said as much herself. By stating that "all generations shall call me blessed," Mary was not vainly contemplating her own uniqueness, but proclaiming the wonder that her life was to manifest God's glorious victory in His Christ for all time.

Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages. The entire history of Israel, the patriarchs, the psalms, the prophets, the giving of the commandments converged in the young woman who would answer the way all Israel should always have answered, and as we all are expected to answer now: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord."

But her purpose in salvation history did not end there. She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful. Instead her whole being and life would continue to point us without distraction to her Son. At the wedding of Cana in Galilee we hear her words: "Whatever He says to you, do it" (John 2:5). At her Son's crucifixion, she stands fast at the foot of the Cross, this time pointing not with words but by her refusal to leave His side even in the face of what seemed an impossible nightmare. As we undertake to imitate this faithfulness in pointing always to God, we will begin to see in the same measure that Mary's perpetual virginity is in fact her ever-ministry, the ideal example for our own ministry.

It is important to recover the proper veneration of Mary which the apostolic Church has always held, not because Mary is the great exception but, as one Orthodox theologian has said, because she is the great example. This veneration is beautifully expressed in an Orthodox hymn that poetically recounts Gabriel's first encounter with Mary, who was about to become the Ark of the New Covenant, the throne of God, the flesh which gave flesh to the Word of God:

Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
"What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace."

For instance, in 1 Corinthians,Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brothers at the same time. These were of course not children of Mary.

I'm not aware of anyone claiming these to be brothers of Jesus.

The context indicates they are not.

Much as Paul uses ἀδελφοί in Galatians 1:2 to identify fellow believers. No one believes these are his actual brothers. Why? Context.

Matt 27:56 identifies "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" as one of the women who ministered to Jesus, not as His mother. She is evidently the wife of Clopas.

Perhaps you're aware Mary, James and Joseph were fairly common names back in the day.

Jesus did, too, to mean somebody close to you (as in Matt. 5:22-24, 7:3-5, 12:50,18:15, and many other places in the NT.

And again...context, which I'm beginning to believe is a new concept to the Catholic, tells us how to understand "brother" in these verses.

However, these are not the verses in question.

These are the verses we're discussing.

The context of each tells us Jesus had brothers and sisters and they came from Joseph and Mary. Any other understanding defies common reading.

While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Matt 12:46

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Matt 13:55

And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matt 13:56

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. Mark 6:3

And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. Luke 8:19

And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You." Luke 8:20

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days John 2:12

Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. John 7:3

For not even His brothers were believing in Him. John 7:5

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19