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]

.
Mentally, morally, emotionally, the response of a child.
.

[Luircin]

Of course I do.

But why should I care? Neither you nor he produced any actual Hebrew manuscript of Matthew, and he provides no evidence either.

I’ve provided TEXTUAL evidence of early Matthew in Koine. http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33 You’ve provided hot air, insults, and a single sentence by someone who lived 70 years after Jesus that’s not even a manuscript OR a quotation. (By the way, that’s another ad hominem from your insults. So SEVEN times you fail logic forever so far.)

And, for that matter, even IF you were right. Even IF, that still proves absolutely nothing. Since you don’t HAVE any copies at all of Matthew in Hebrew that weren’t 300-1200 years out of date, you have no idea what this mythical source even says, and so therefore anything you say using it as a source is utterly baseless.

And you have also not shown me anything about A: the rest of the books of the New Testament, B: Paul’s language, and C: The fact that you cited a passage in Acts to prove your point only to claim that EXACT SAME passage was corrupted and so should be thrown out. Shall I just assume you concede all my points then?

Answer my points, buddy. Debate. Disprove me. Provide your evidence. But until you do, that’s eight times you lose the argument today. Care for nine?

[Luircin]

Logical fallacy: Ad hominem.

You Fail Logic Forever nine times so far, not counting everything I missed.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Get the real words from the real source, Michael himself.

Con men don't have real words. Just their version of truth.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mentally, morally, emotionally, the response of a child.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why, thank you, ealgeone.

[metmom]

Jesus gives grace.

Only sinners receive it.

Your verses prove nothing.

[metmom]

Omnipotent means all powerful.

It doesn’t mean capable of doing the impossible.

Besides, God can’t do everything.

Any argument that *God can do anything....* is built on a false premise.

[metmom]

I am limmerick challenged.

I will sit out and enjoy the limmerick battle and admire the expertise displayed.

[Luircin]

Well, do remember that Jesus said that with God, nothing is impossible.

Having said that, from what the Lord has revealed to us, there are things that God WILL not do. With the strong definition of the word ‘will’. Such as, God WILL not do evil.

[metmom]

Nothing is impossible for God in what we ask for.

However, God cannot lie and He cannot change and He cannot deny Himself.

Those are found in Scripture but I am working off my iPad abd do not have my Scripture references available.

[ealgeone]

However, God cannot lie and He cannot change and He cannot deny Himself.

People want to dismiss this to justify what they want to believe.

[Mark17]

Roger that. 😀😆😄 Hey MM, I think Elsie is just winding up for another round. Any moment now, I expect to see him make about 25 posts. 😆

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree. But I did not say that God could to something which was impossible in the logical sense, i.e irrational ("make a number that is both even and odd"), or that He could do something in violation of His own divine character, e.g. to lie.

Good point. I appreciate your clarifying that.

[Luircin]

Yeah. That’s what I intended to say, just a bit sleepy so it came out sloppy.

Not to say anything against the Lord being all powerful of course. Just that the Lord obeys His own rules.

[ealgeone]

He would also not have Mary as sinless and then have Paul write "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

The Greek behind this indicates each and every person has sinned. Everyone.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Grace is God's favor. It is given and received in the interior life within the Blessed Trinity itself, eternally.

The good angels, too, are not sinners and yet they receive God's grace. They could not *be* without it, for their very existence arises from this source. His graciousness is grace.

If I may ask, explain how, in your opinion, Jesus advancing or growing in grace (the verse from Luke) means "nothing".

[Mrs. Don-o]

“Each and every person”? It doesn’t refer to Jesus....for one.

[af_vet_1981]

This is why it's so essential to understand the original languages.

...

you're well inoculated into Roman Catholicism.

Yet both the Eastern and Western Catholics knew and know Greek better and have an unbroken chain for Theotokos being ever virgin. It is not just the church at Rome. It was every genuine church and even some of those that rebelled and started the Protestant faith communities.

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.

[ealgeone]

That we have to say created person shows how closed the Catholic mind is to the understanding of the Scriptures.