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.

[Mark17]

I think Limbo is an old catholic place
To others it may be just a safe space
Not attaining to Heaven
They committed the seven
Deadly sins, so to Limbo, they did race.

[metmom]

I figured the ark was Jesus, God dwelling in a human body.

[ealgeone]

You keep appealing to the Greek Orthodox as long running tradition to justify your position....aren't they the ones who disagree about the status of the Pope?

As you seem to be embracing the GO, are you willing to admit they're right about the pope and the RCC is wrong?

[metmom]

We are all Arks now, Jesus dwelling in us through faith, our bodies the temple of the Holy Spirit.

That makes each one of us holy and pure, with the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, God’s anointed.

[ealgeone]

The Greek Orthodox he keeps appealing to would disagree.

[daniel1212]

What Rome is really saying, and acting out with a celibate priesthood, is that the marriage bed is somehow defiled by intimate relations by a husband and wife. Which of course is unBiblical as well.

Some so-called "Church Fathers" on virginity versus marriage

[ealgeone]

Well, that certainly would wipe out another of Catholicism’s Marian dogmas.

[ealgeone]

When you consider the implications of this, Rome is asserting that not once, ever, did Mary sin. Not once. Ever. No lust, no envy, no pride, no anger, no fear....nothing. Ever.

This would seemingly out her on par with Christ who was sinless. the Fifth Marian dogma will make this complete.

It continues to shed light on why Christians say Catholics worship Mary.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I understand the attacks in your post.

Many of those caught up in cults have strong emotional bonds to the cult father. When someone points out he is a cultivated, false teacher, these “true believers” come unhinged.

It is the equivalent of an attack on both their (wrongly) cherished beliefs and their cult family.

How did you end up following the cultist Rood?
How are you doing keeping the Law?

[MHGinTN]

There is a long list of reasons that Catholicism is not Christianity, many of which are infesting Mariology.

[af_vet_1981]

You keep appealing to the Greek Orthodox as long running tradition to justify your position....aren't they the ones who disagree about the status of the Pope?

As you seem to be embracing the GO, are you willing to admit they're right about the pope and the RCC is wrong?

That the Orthodox/Catholics have always believed in the perpetual virginity of Theotokos demonstrates it is a universally accepted holy tradition. There is a fundamental difference between trying to reform and justify a modern position and accepting a two thousand year old teaching universally universally shared by all genuine Christians. Attacking the Greek Orthodox does not diminish their credibility with respect to
1. the Greek language and Jesus' brethren.
2. an unbroken tradition upholding blessed Mary's perpetual virginity.

[ealgeone]

That the Orthodox/Catholics have always believed in the perpetual virginity of Theotokos demonstrates it is a universally accepted holy tradition.

They've also rejected the RCC claims of the pope...I'll ask again...are you willing to embrace all the Greek Orthodox espouse?

Or, are you just picking and choosing the things you like about the GO?

[Mark17]

It continues to shed light on why Christians say Catholics worship Mary.

I worshiped Mary when I was a Catholic. I don't know if all Catholics worship Mary. I just know that I did.

[MHGinTN]

But now you’re a Christian, Bro, and God’s Spirit gives you discernment. See you in the clouds, Brother!

[ealgeone]

A very interesting passage from Jerome's defense of perpetual virginity. He seems to be saying Mary was not married after Jesus was born. This will upset the applecart. Thoughts?

21. 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.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

He also makes a case for sola scriptura as well though our Catholic friends will not see it.

Bear in mind Jerome was born ~347 AD and died 420 AD. He is believed to have been baptized around ~360-366 AD....~260 yrs after the last apostle died

[ealgeone]

It is also interesting to note the following regarding Jerome's defense of perpetual virginity.

This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the "sisters" and "brethren" spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity," pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

There are no known surviving works of Helvidius. It is hard to accept only a one sided argument as absolute truth.

[ealgeone]

There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[37] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[45] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Early_Church

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Bear in mind Jerome was born ~347 AD and died 420 AD. He is believed to have been baptized around ~360-366 AD....~260 yrs after the last apostle died

Peak years of paganism entering and being incorporated into the Roman Catholic church.

[PeterPrinciple]

Tradition

---

Mat 7:28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching,
Mat 7:29 for He taught with real authority—quite unlike their teachers of religious law.

The Religious leaders were teaching traditions. Scripture to the Religious leaders was the oral traditions. People were taught the oral traditions.

Scripture to Jesus was not the oral traditions.

There are many examples of this in the NT if you look closely. The tradition of divorce, Moses gave the manna in the wilderness, many other subtle twists.

P are subject to traditions also, the only cure is going back to the original source. But it is the nature of man to do let others do their thinking for them, we are sheep which is good if we have the right shepard.

Jesus went to the original source and the people had never heard that before. Of course it was Jesus, but we do have the original source.

Traditions are not necessarily bad but they do drift, as is obvious with the worship of Mary. God word does not change.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

It is also interesting to note the following regarding Jerome's defense of perpetual virginity. This tract appeared about a.d. 383

Peak Paganism Period - almost 300 years after the Apostles!