Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

[boatbums]

I appreciate your prayerful and thoughtful responses. I do not claim to know - nor can any human on this earthly plane, that is - for a fact HOW Almighty God caused the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. I do not believe that had He done so by using Mary's own ovum it was in any way "defrauding" her husband Joseph. God will always do right, good and not evil. This is true whether He commands the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child, livestock, etc. of those He brings judgment upon. Nor of His holy angels when they were directed to destroy ALL the living in Sodom and Gomorrah along with obliterating the cities. We cannot measure God's actions by human morality standards. Atheists do that and they imagine it excuses them from believing in Him.

I believe Scripture does say that Jesus was born OF the virgin Mary, that He was of her "seed" and that He was genetically human - the fruit of her womb - and a Jew because of her lineage from King David and his heir. Just as an interesting side note...Joseph was also of the lineage of David but, because Jeconiah, also called “Jehoiachin” (1 Chronicles 3:16, NIV) and “Coniah” (Jeremiah 22:24), was cursed by God who declared none of his offspring will sit on the throne of David (Jer. 22:30), this would have disqualified Jesus had he been the offspring of Joseph. Mary's line went through a different branch and Jesus IS the rightful heir to the eternal throne of David.

Where I differ from Mrs. Don-o is in the assertion that God's choosing of Mary to bear the Messiah meant she was somehow God's "wife/spouse" and could not be a true wife to Joseph. I think many Scripture passages tell us that they had a normal, natural marriage after this miraculous event and, had they not, it WOULD have been defrauding Joseph to whom God said to fear not to take Mary as his wife. Now, had things happened as some believe that Mary was to forever be set apart as the spouse of the Holy Spirit and remain a virgin, something would have been said about that in God's word and neither Mary nor Joseph would have been taken by surprise. Why leave that out? Instead, we read that Jesus' brothers and sisters are identified. That James the Just was called "the Lord's brother" and that his other brothers were involved in spreading the Christian faith after the resurrection.

This topic, though a sensitive one for some, can be discussed respectfully and agreement to disagree will have to be good enough when another's proofs are insufficient to sway one way or the other. I honor Mary and her example of faith. To disagree with Marian dogmas is not dishonoring her.

[af_vet_1981]

Jesus being the first born means He is the oldest. There wouldn't be any older children.

No, the meaning of firstborn does not presuppose additional children. It just means the first.

Your reach back to the OT account of Joseph is ...

Joseph is a beautiful type of the Messiah.

[metmom]

Quite astounding, isn’t it, the lengths to which Catholics will go in denying the clear reading of Scripture, ignoring the Greek, and making assumptions about culture, customs, how Mary and Joseph’s marriage was different, making all kinds of assumptions about their age, previous marital status, possible children, making up titles for Mary that the Holy Spirit never used, etc, all to keep Mary forever a virgin.

All in defending a doctrine which has not the slightest Scriptural support.

You’d think it was like they really thought that sex was sinful or something.

[metmom]

1) Because Mary had not yet consummated her marriage. The other women had. Nor were they told that what was concieved in them was from the Holy Spirit.

2) There’s not a shred of evidence that the Ark of the Covenant ever referred to Mary.

3) An argument based on “if” is meaningless. God did not choose to reveal to us HOW He did the Incarnation, but the fact remains that He DID use a man’s legal wife and clearly, since God indeed would not do anything immoral, there was nothing immoral about His actions. Therefore your argument from that angle is invalid.

There is NOTHING at all in Scripture to support Mary’s claimed pledged virginity. It’s downright ludicrous to think that a three year old knows enough about sex to take a vow of chastity or virginity, and then to claim that a girl who took a vow like that went and got legally married?!?!?!

Ridiciluous!!!!

And the argument about her doing it so she’d be taken care of falls flat as well. If she had remained single, her family would have taken care of her.

She didn’t need to enter a sham invalid ( according to the Catholic church) marriage for that purpose.

By doing so, you all are also claiming that Mary conspired with Joseph to deceive others in her family and commuinty into thinking that Mary was his wife and Jesus was their child.

The Jews in that day DID NOT KNOW who Jesus was. They thought He was simply the carpenter’s son, which is recorded in Scripture and that is why they were so confused about what was happening.

[metmom]

The NT was written in GREEK.

Whatever you claim the Hebrew means does not eve enter into the equation.

I in no way supported your point.

[metmom]

No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity

And there we have it.

The teaching that sex is sinful.

After all, if Joseph had touched her, had sex with her, she wouldn't be pure anymore.

[metmom]

No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity

And there we have it.

The teaching that sex is sinful.

After all, if Joseph had touched her, had sex with her, she wouldn't be pure anymore.

[boatbums]

Honestly...what did you learn at seminary????

That he can tell everyone to call him Father Arthur? ;o)

[editor-surveyor]

.
Your heart is with your Daddy, Satan!

Propagating lies is so spiritual!
.

[metmom]

Jesus told the disciples to not use the title “Father” for religious leaders.

The Catholic church has its followers disobey Jesus’ clear and concise command.

They are wrong and disobeying Jesus.

Deal with it.

[boatbums]

The teaching that sex is sinful. After all, if Joseph had touched her, had sex with her, she wouldn't be pure anymore.

"Pure" anymore for what, I wonder? Her physical purity of being a virgin accomplished the purpose of her bearing the sinless incarnate Son of God. Once that occurred, there would have been no reason for her body to remain in that state - no future virgin births were planned. The Ark of the Covenant was special because it represented the presence of God to the children of Israel. Once the Messiah came and the temple veil was torn from top to bottom where the Mercy Seat within the Holy of Holies of the temple was kept, God's presence would now be WITHIN each believer and the Mercy Seat was now in heaven covered in the shed blood of the Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

I would agree that, yes, in a sense Mary was a type of the Ark of the Covenant in that the presence of the Son of God resided within her until His birth, but once He was born, Mary's body no longer held Him. She received the indwelling Holy Spirit at Pentecost just like the others.

The Ark of the Covenant was supposed to be untouched by anyone except the priests of the Temple. Today, all believers are of the holy priesthood, "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5)

I remain unconvinced of the Catholic Mariology arguments - NOT because I don't like Mary or disrespect her, but because I think we should have Divine revelation through God's word for the doctrines we hold to be of the Christian faith. To rely upon manmade myths, legends or fables is to become easy prey for all kinds of strange beliefs and we risk losing sight of to whom we owe ALL glory, honor and praise.

[Mark17]

2) There’s not a shred of evidence that the Ark of the Covenant ever referred to Mary.

No, not for a second. But MM, when I was in the OTC, I never heard anything about that, and I never heard Mary referred to as the second Eve, and I never heard that the "woman" in Revelation, was anything other than Israel.
I am not sure, but if someone had tried to push that stuff on me, I might have left the OTC long before I did. Maybe that would have been better. 😊
Here is another thing. My mom told me that she thought dad would go to Limbo. Now, I never knew what would qualify one for Limbo, as opposed to Hell or purgatory, but in recent years, I have seen no mention of Limbo. Did the place disappear? Since we know God never changes, did He change His mind on Limbo, and destroy the place? What happened to the souls in Limbo? Maybe they were all sent to purgatory. Inquiring minds want to know. You know, I am not into false religions and doctrines. 😃

[21twelve]

I think the whole idea of Limbo is in limbo right now.

[Mark17]

I think the whole idea of Limbo is in limbo right now.

LOL. You may be right. I just wanted to give members of the OTC, a chance to explain it. What happened to the place, and all the souls that were in it? A conundrum, yes?

[Luircin]

BS.

Just because the mods deleted your insulting post doesn’t mean that you didn’t send it.

And.

Just because your cult doesn’t have any proof for its claims doesn’t mean that you have to take it out on me.

[Elsie]

You have an amazing ability to expose foolishness in Catholic reasoning in such succinct postings!

I don't actually lay the eggs; I merely color them.

[Elsie]

What do you call YOUR father?

My FATHER sure as HELL was NOT a religion teacher!

[Elsie]

IIRC, there are four named individuals who are referred to in the gospels as “brothers” of Jesus, and the parents of three of them are named—and the parents are not Joseph and Mary. I would think that that would settle the question of whether “brother” always denotes a full sibling.

There is ONE man addressed as SATAN by Jesus.

I would think that that would settle the question of whether Catholicism is the One True Church or not.

---

13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. 
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car. 
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine. 

[Elsie]

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity?

---

The sky is blue.

Why not believe in leprechauns?

---

[Elsie]

Why would you ignore eyewitness testimony which states Mary and the BROTHERS of Jesus came to where HE was teaching, asking to have a word with HIM?

I guess it would depend on whether it fits into what you've been thoroughly taught.

---

An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal

 

"It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time

"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.

"Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet...turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.

"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.

"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.

"All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena."

Professor Almeida Garrett's full account may be found in Novos Documentos de Fatima (Loyala editions, San Paulo, 1984)

 

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp

 

 

 

 

 It is for others to interpret and explain them.   Indeed Rome has!!!!