MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

101G said:

just an oponion ok.

Click to expand...

absolutely -- who says i am right ---- its a conversation between friends
talking , questions , reasoning --- works best we we communicate

GodsGrace said:

Hi MM
I'm just looking around and came upon this.
Some years ago I did a nice study on this....It's not
as easy as all of us make it out to be.

It's rather complicated and I can't remember too much,
but I just want to say that even some Catholic theologians
believe that Jesus COULD have had brothers. It depends on
how they spoke back then...how the relationships were spoken of...
the verses in the bible.

I've come to the conclusion that I take no stand.

If Jesus had brothers,,,why did He leave His mother to John?

If someone could answer that....it might help me along my way.

Click to expand...

Thank you GG.

According to Jewish law the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first born son. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John.

Hope that helps....Mary

Nancy said:

Jesus' brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark (Mark 6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
The language here tells me that yes indeed, he did have biological siblings.

John 7:3 "Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do."
So we see that not only the disciples are being referred to here too.

Click to expand...

Hi Nancy.

James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). Mary of Cleophas is described in the Gospel of John as our Blessed Mother’s “sister” (John 20:25); obviously, she must have been a cousin, and James and Joses thereby cousins of our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Matthew 20:20ff).


Bible study Mary

GodsGrace said:

Some theologians believe they were the children of Joseph since he was so much older than Mary.

I would tend toward the fact that they were brothers.
But what about what I had mentioned up above?
Why would Jesus command John to care for His mother if He had brothers or sisters that could do this?

Click to expand...

James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). Mary of Cleophas is described in the Gospel of John as our Blessed Mother’s “sister” (John 20:25); obviously, she must have been a cousin, and James and Joses thereby cousins of our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Matthew 20:20ff).

Adelphos does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or step-brother. The word also described other relationships like cousins, nephews, uncles, etc. For example in Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16


Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis in the 4th Century, argued that the siblings weren’t cousins, but Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, making them the step-siblings of Jesus. Some apocryphal works, such as the 2nd century historical Christian writing Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, all seem to indicate a tradition of belief that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph.

Mary

Marymog said:

James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). Mary of Cleophas is described in the Gospel of John as our Blessed Mother’s “sister” (John 20:25); obviously, she must have been a cousin, and James and Joses thereby cousins of our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Matthew 20:20ff).

Adelphos does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or step-brother. The word also described other relationships like cousins, nephews, uncles, etc. For example in Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16


Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis in the 4th Century, argued that the siblings weren’t cousins, but Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, making them the step-siblings of Jesus. Some apocryphal works, such as the 2nd century historical Christian writing Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, all seem to indicate a tradition of belief that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph.

Mary

Click to expand...

Yes, I had said this in my first post here a couple of pages back.
I had said that Mary was about 15/16 and Joseph might have been
25/30 or so.

I just can't think about this too much. Truthfully it makes no difference to me although I know in catholic doctrine it does. I honestly don't understand why however....I mean, why it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin. Could you imagine giving birth and she was still virgin? This turns off so many persons I know that tell me it sounds like a story (a fairy tale).

I know that spiritual ideas can only be accepted with the spirit...
1 Cor 2:14...but why make it so difficult??

GodsGrace said:

I mean, why it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin....
I know that spiritual ideas can only be accepted with the spirit...
1 Cor 2:14...but why make it so difficult??

Click to expand...

Hi GG....

According to the earliest Christian historical records (Protoevangelium of James) when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

According to Scripture, Virginity is a higher estate.

Mary became the vessel for God and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Mary's life, including her body, was consecrated to God and God alone. To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something that is implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor Joseph would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.

Historical and Bible study Mary

Pearl said:

Mary was a married woman and as far as I know they didn't have The Pill back then, so once Jesus was born and Joseph claimed his conjugal rights she wouldn't have remained a virgin for very long. And if she refused him his marital comforts she would not have been a very good wife. So obviously there must have been other children born to Joseph and Mary. Unless she was barren.

Click to expand...

Hi Pearl,

Where does Scripture say that "Joseph claimed his conjugal rights"? I can't find it....

Where does Scripture make it obvious that "there must have been other children born to Joseph and Mary"? I can't find that either....

Mary

Pearl said:

Mary was a married woman and as far as I know they didn't have The Pill back then, so once Jesus was born and Joseph claimed his conjugal rights she wouldn't have remained a virgin for very long. And if she refused him his marital comforts she would not have been a very good wife. So obviously there must have been other children born to Joseph and Mary. Unless she was barren.

Click to expand...

Agree.

And I have read no scripture showing that Jesus didn't live a normal life in a normal family, with a normal mother and father. And became a normal carpenter until He was 30.

GodsGrace said:

Yes, I had said this in my first post here a couple of pages back.
I had said that Mary was about 15/16 and Joseph might have been
25/30 or so.

I just can't think about this too much. Truthfully it makes no difference to me although I know in catholic doctrine it does. I honestly don't understand why however....I mean, why it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin. Could you imagine giving birth and she was still virgin? This turns off so many persons I know that tell me it sounds like a story (a fairy tale).

I know that spiritual ideas can only be accepted with the spirit...
1 Cor 2:14...but why make it so difficult??

Click to expand...

"heavy with child " sounds like a perfectly normal birthing to me.
Impossible to be a virgin after childbirth.

GodsGrace said:

Hi MM
I'm just looking around and came upon this.
Some years ago I did a nice study on this....It's not
as easy as all of us make it out to be.

It's rather complicated and I can't remember too much,
but I just want to say that even some Catholic theologians
believe that Jesus COULD have had brothers. It depends on
how they spoke back then...how the relationships were spoken of...
the verses in the bible.

I've come to the conclusion that I take no stand.

If Jesus had brothers,,,why did He leave His mother to John?

If someone could answer that....it might help me along my way.

Click to expand...

Hi,

I suspect that no matter which stand we take it won't effect our salvation. There are some of us who like to dig deeper into Scripture/Christian history and look at the bigger picture. This curiosity and desire to dig deeper creates theologians however we must always keep in mind 2 Peter 1:20 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

Respectfully, Mary

Marymog said:

Hi GG....

According to the earliest Christian historical records (Protoevangelium of James) when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

According to Scripture, Virginity is a higher estate.

Mary became the vessel for God and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Mary's life, including her body, was consecrated to God and God alone. To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something that is implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor Joseph would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.

Historical and Bible study Mary

Click to expand...

Why would you call something God deemed as a blessing, within a married couple "inappropriate"? And, If Mary was consecrated to God and God alone, it would seem she had no business getting married to a mere man because a wife, esp. back then, had certain duties to serve her husband, and yes, that includes sexual relations, blessed by God Himself. None of us can know any of this for certain, as it is tradition only.
Matthew 12:46 says, "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Compare Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12; 7:3; 7:5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19.
If you think that the term brother means "cousin" in these versus, why did they not just use that Greek word for cousins? Paul used it in in Colossians 4:10. So, why not just use it in all those other verses?
Psalm 69:8 uses the Greek word brothers which can't refer to simply cousins, since the word is clearly speaking to the Messiah's mother's son. Some say these brothers were distant relatives. But, if they were distant relatives, then why didn't Matthew just use the Greek term "suggenes," as Luke did for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36?
Matthew 13:56 and Mark 6:3 refer to Jesus' sisters in the Greek so, why would mother be translated literally, but not the brothers and sisters?
Bible Study Nancy ♥

Nancy said:

Why would you call something God deemed as a blessing, within a married couple "inappropriate"? And, If Mary was consecrated to God and God alone, it would seem she had no business getting married to a mere man because a wife, esp. back then, had certain duties to serve her husband, and yes, that includes sexual relations, blessed by God Himself. None of us can know any of this for certain, as it is tradition only.
Matthew 12:46 says, "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Compare Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12; 7:3; 7:5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19.
If you think that the term brother means "cousin" in these versus, why did they not just use that Greek word for cousins? Paul used it in in Colossians 4:10. So, why not just use it in all those other verses?
Psalm 69:8 uses the Greek word brothers which can't refer to simply cousins, since the word is clearly speaking to the Messiah's mother's son. Some say these brothers were distant relatives. But, if they were distant relatives, then why didn't Matthew just use the Greek term "suggenes," as Luke did for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36?
Matthew 13:56 and Mark 6:3 refer to Jesus' sisters in the Greek so, why would mother be translated literally, but not the brothers and sisters?
Bible Study Nancy ♥

Click to expand...

Very good points....
BTW I like your new Avatar

"ByGrace" said:

Very good points....
BTW I like your new Avatar

Click to expand...

Thanks, and thanks! I did not like the last pic, I am not a cammy kind of gal, it was at a "Everybody wear camouflage clothes kind of theme lol...also, did not like, well...never mind, ahaha...you are sharp, maybe you will understand what I mean here

"ByGrace" said:

"heavy with child " sounds like a perfectly normal birthing to me.
Impossible to be a virgin after childbirth.

Click to expand...

I agree. But this is what Catholicism teaches.
Are you ready?
They also teach that Mary did not experience any pain.

GodsGrace said:

I agree. But this is what Catholicism teaches.
Are you ready?
They also teach that Mary did not experience any pain.

Click to expand...

Really!

That is not based in scripture. It may be true...but who KNOWS.
Plus, none of it changes the Powerful work of Jesus on the cross one bit.

It seems like someone made those things up, and many agreed , so they just adopted it.

Marymog said:

Hi,

I suspect that no matter which stand we take it won't effect our salvation. There are some of us who like to dig deeper into Scripture/Christian history and look at the bigger picture. This curiosity and desire to dig deeper creates theologians however we must always keep in mind 2 Peter 1:20 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

Respectfully, Mary

Click to expand...

I agree with 2 Peter 1:20, of course.
A problem I have with catholicism is that I'm always told that one has to believe ALL the dogmas or he cannot consider himself a Catholic.

Now, I know what a person is supposed to do if he cannot believe...pray and not fall into obstinate denial. But I find not many that believe all of the dogmas. There are some truly Catholics friends of mine that believe the magesterium in full.

Nancy said:

Why would you call something God deemed as a blessing, within a married couple "inappropriate"? And, If Mary was consecrated to God and God alone, it would seem she had no business getting married to a mere man because a wife, esp. back then, had certain duties to serve her husband, and yes, that includes sexual relations, blessed by God Himself. None of us can know any of this for certain, as it is tradition only.
Matthew 12:46 says, "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Compare Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12; 7:3; 7:5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19.
If you think that the term brother means "cousin" in these versus, why did they not just use that Greek word for cousins? Paul used it in in Colossians 4:10. So, why not just use it in all those other verses?
Psalm 69:8 uses the Greek word brothers which can't refer to simply cousins, since the word is clearly speaking to the Messiah's mother's son. Some say these brothers were distant relatives. But, if they were distant relatives, then why didn't Matthew just use the Greek term "suggenes," as Luke did for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36?
Matthew 13:56 and Mark 6:3 refer to Jesus' sisters in the Greek so, why would mother be translated literally, but not the brothers and sisters?
Bible Study Nancy ♥

Click to expand...

Thank you. You make some good points Bible study Nancy....

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for two obvious reasons. Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. If Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the "son" of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

According to Luke 1:27 Mary and Joseph were already “espoused”. Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant. In a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.

I presume the point you are trying to make is that in Matthew 13:55 and other texts they would have used anepsios instead of adelphos if James and the others were Jesus’ cousins and not his uterine brothers. Your point lacks merit because adelphos can have a wider meaning than uterine brother. Also we should not suppose that adelphos means precisely “cousin.” Anepsios (cousin) is rather too precise a word for Jesus’ adelphoi. Anepsios means “first cousin” or sometimes merely “cousin.” Now every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Therefore, adelphos, not anepsios, was the appropriate word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus’ relatives. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe).

The earliest teaching of our Christian forefathers and the men of the Reformation taught that Mary did not have other children. The teaching that she had other children began with the men who disagreed with the Reformers.

Bible, history and linguistics teacher Mary