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.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You spam the forum with calling belief in the word a “cult” and you’re upset that I call attention to your nonsense?

Go tell mommie.

Your every post on this thread has been arrogant ignorance in calling others cultists or worse.

[dwilkins]

I’m not so sure Greek was widely spoken as modern authorities assume. Josephus (an obviously highly educated person in leadership in Judea) wrote Wars of the Jews in Aramaic. He then tried to learn Greek in order to translate it into Greek. He failed, and then hired a translator. There is no doubt that Alexandrian Jews spoke Greek, which is why the Septuagint was created. But, I doubt that the average person in the New Testament narrative spoke Greek.

[af_vet_1981]

You continue to advance this already disproven claim.

Stating that one does not believe something does not disprove it.

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.

[Luircin]

Ha ha, hahaha.

I wasn’t even the original person you insulted, just called you out on it.

By the way, reported to the mods.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Es, you are in a cult, led by a long-time cultist.

If I had to bet, I’d guess you began following Michael Rood when he was a leader of the last group you belonged to - The Way.

Following Rood to his new cult provided a place to keep the umbilical cord plugged in.

But that is just my best guess based on your comments.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK. We're in agreement on this: we both realize that the term "Mother of God" does not mean that Mary existed before her Son, who is the Eternal Word.

That has been so (!) often (!) explained (!) Really, if people would keep the real, historic definition in mind, there would be no danger of being confused. It's been solidly understood by the vast majority of Christians for a millennium and a half, like wow.

The fact that the term (Theotokos or its equivalent =- LINK) is not explicitly stated in the NT is not a reason not to use it. It's like the terms "Incarnation" or "Trinity" or "Supreme Being" or "personal Savior" or even "Bible" or "Vacation Bible School" or "WWJD" or "Church Home" or "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" or "Fellowshipping"-as-a-verb ("We're fellowshipping") --- they're true and Christians use them to express the truth.

If someone's confused about what they mean, one simple explanation one time, is usually enough to clear it up.

I'm going to have some strawberry shortcake. Mmm. Goodnight and peace to all.

[Luircin]

You spam the forum with calling belief in the word a “cult” and you’re upset that I call attention to your nonsense?

Go tell mommie.

Your every post on this thread has been arrogant ignorance in calling others cultists or worse.

***

What’s the matter? You start out by insulting the intelligence of people who want proof for your claims, then double and triple down on your insults.

Now you can’t take even half of what you’re dishing out?

If anyone is at fault for starting this, it’s e-s, not anyone else.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"She carried him and provided for him and loved him. That is all."

Just to clarify something here: you're not one of those guys who says Mary isn't really Jesus' genetic mother, she was just a surrogate --- are you? I never ran into that in my entire life until I read it here from ONE person (who shall not be named) just a very short time ago.

But I don't think that's your position, is it?

[ealgeone]

The fact that the term (Theotokos or its equivalent =- LINK) is not explicitly stated in the NT is not a reason not to use it.

2) Nowhere in Scripture is anyone called a Son of Mary except Jesus Christ.

You're argument against not calling James, Joseph, Jude and Simon along with His sisters children of Mary.

You do realize you're arguing against yourself and losing. Rather badly I might add.

[Mark17]

Too many cults out there. Remember bro, whatever cult members think about you, is what they think of Jesus. Hang in there. 🇵🇭😇

[Pelham]

Aramaic was certainly the vernacular language but Koine Greek should have been common among the literate. Alexander and the Seleucid/Ptolemy Greeks had ruled the region for a couple of hundred years until Rome conquered. Greek was the common language for a very large part of the eastern Med due to Alexander. Surprised to hear that Josephus didn’t speak it.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’ve not shared my position on that topic on this thread. I’ve done my best to focus on the thread topic with some cult exposition thrown in gratis!

[Pelham]

Rood does appear to have gotten into trouble over money. So con man may indeed be fitting.

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_RoodArbitraRep.htm

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mark, in my experience with cults, as soon as you undermine their cult, their experience in the cult, or specific beliefs of the cult, they call names.

It is one way they self-identify as cultists.

I never take it personally.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Con men love the power of religion to extract money and for self-aggrandizement.

Rood is a con man, like Joseph Smith.

[MHGinTN]

Why not be more specific and use ovum or sex cell from Mary/gamete in making Jesus’s body? BE SPECIFIC, AMU is an educated man and will know the implications, and readers keeping up will realize what Catholicism claims specifically, without vague and imprecise words that conceal the real implications of Catholicism claims.

[metmom]

Mary became engaged to Joseph so that Joseph would be her provider and protector, and for their mutual support and comfort.

And you know this how?

Did he or Mary tell you?

[metmom]

Oh, so you’re on a first name basis with Michael, eh?

I would imagine that’s quite easy in a tiny cult like that.

[Pelham]

See if this sounds familiar:

“Michael Rood toured the USA, “correcting” the errors of the Christian Church using his “discovery” of a not-so-old copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. He ends with the command that all followers of Y’shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) are absolutely commanded to obey the whole Law of Moses. : “Found a Book, But Lost the Gospel— A Review of “A Rood Awakening’ and ‘Raiders of the Lost Book’ “ offers a detailed review of his seminars and speculation.

“Some in the Hebrew roots movement passionately reject the use of names such as “Christ” and “Jesus” and any word or practice that sounds as though it has a Greek rather than Hebrew origin. To them, anyone who uses any kind of “Greek” must be wrapped up in worship of the sun god rather than of Yahweh and the Messiah. ‘Messiah or Christ? Yeshua or Jesus?’ examines 19 of their bold claims

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_splintergroups.htm

[MHGinTN]

Magic Thinking runs in a circle, usually. This particular excuse is aimed at giving reason for a vow of no sex, as if Mary and Joseph entered into this sexless pact so Mary could be wife to GOD bearing HIS CHILD. Of course the Bible timeline and Joseph’s reaction exposes this Magic circle quickly so it must be ignored by the Mariology apologist.