Were they Jesus's siblings?

[Ronald Nolette]

You claim that Scripture states in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse until after Mary gave birth to Jesus, but it doesn't; rather, it states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one you're inferring by your insertion of the word "after."

But that is its primary meaning in English and the only meaning in the Greek in which this was written.

But I give you a test to perform. go into a Catholic Church, change the names of Mary and Joseph to John and Jane and Jesus to James and ask them if John had sex with jane after she gave birth to her firstborn

For the sake of argument, say the word "until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth, that in itself wouldn't prove Mary bore more children because, for example, having vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation for some men and women. Your interpretation that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 6+ more kids," at the end is quite random.

So prove this new theory of yours is valid and you win! Prove that Mary was barren and you win!

The reason "kinsman" is a definition of the words "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) and "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi) is because they were used to describe a kinsman, e.g., uncle, nephew, cousin, etc., in Gen. 13:8;14:14;29:15, 1 Chr. 23:22, etc. For this reason, any Lexicons that don't include this definition are in error.

Word definitions aren't as "strict" as you think they are, and the same language can be used differently by different cultures, and every word can have a range of meanings beyond its most literal definition. Otherwise, slang wouldn't exist. And this isn't a modern thing.

Lastly, you can't deny "kinsman" was a definition of the word "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) during the writing of the Septuagint.

Your homework:

(i) Show when "kinsman," e.g., sibling, cousin, uncle, etc., was abandoned as a definition of the word "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) post-Septuagint and pre-New Testament.

(ii) Explain why there are Lexicons, e.g., Lidell-Scott-Jones, Mounce, etc., that include the definition "kinsman" for the word "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) if it was abandoned post-Septuagint and pre-New Testament.

Well now you are just getting awful silly.

All your cites are ot cites and that is in Hebrew and not Greek. so the whole post is inane.

Here is Adelphos:

Adelphos​

ad-el-fos'
Noun Masculine
NAS Word Usage - Total: 343

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place. Now as far as the Septuagint goes. when it was written the Hebrew writers used the best word available to go from Hebrew to Greek.

We do not even know if the Greek had a word for cousin in the 3rd century BC as it did in Jesus time. but even if it didn't, the major meaning is still brothers by blood! The other meanings are if the first isn't valid. That is how multiple meanings work. when you have say 4 meanings of a word, the first is always the main reason unless it is not valid. then you go to the second, third and so on to get to the valid definition.

Also it never applies to the feminine adelphoi in first century greek and Hebrew culture. No one ever said women were sisters, they were all considered brethren by ethnicity.

 

[Rockerduck]

God told Jeremiah not to marry. If God wanted Mary to remain a virgin, He would have told her not to marry.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

God told Jeremiah not to marry. If God wanted Mary to remain a virgin, He would have told her not to marry.

tHAT IS NOT NECCESARILY TRUE. god may have wanted Jesus the human brought up in a typical Jewish home with a mother and father. But Mary did marry and Jewish law required sex between spouses and to have more than one child if one is able. Mary would not have sinned by denying Joseph his marital rights.

 

[RLT63]

and they are wrong as far as Matt. 1 goes. Until is the English word. it means the same as the Greek word. It is a time limit word. Jesus waited to have sex with Mary "UNTIL" Jesus was born. there is no other way to correctly translate that passage.

Agree

 

[Rockerduck]

tHAT IS NOT NECCESARILY TRUE. god may have wanted Jesus the human brought up in a typical Jewish home with a mother and father. But Mary did marry and Jewish law required sex between spouses and to have more than one child if one is able. Mary would not have sinned by denying Joseph his marital rights.

You missed my point.

 

[St. SteVen]

God told Jeremiah not to marry. If God wanted Mary to remain a virgin, He would have told her not to marry.

That's a great observation.
The angel that told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife also should have warned.
"And don't you EVER lay a hand on her!"

I feel sorry for the Catholic Joseph.

 

[RLT63]

That's a great observation.
The angel that told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife also should have warned.
"And don't you EVER lay a hand on her!"

I feel sorry for the Catholic Joseph.

Well we’re probably not told everything that was said.

 

[Rockerduck]

Well we’re probably not told everything that was said.

True. But the Holy Spirit gives us discernment to read between the lines. Most of it is in plain sight.

 

[St. SteVen]

True. But the Holy Spirit gives us discernment to read between the lines. Most of it is in plain sight.

Yes, a plain reading of the events as recorded do not favor the Catholic position.

 

[St. SteVen]

Well we’re probably not told everything that was said.

We may have been told things that were NEVER said.
The events were written about after 30 years of oral tradition.
Have you ever played the telephone game?
(sharing from one person to the next in a circle)

Imagine the news about the 9/11 bombings not being written about until 2030.
Another seven years. Most will have forgotten about it by then.

 

[RLT63]

We may have been told things that were NEVER said.
The events were written about after 30 years of oral tradition.
Have you ever played the telephone game?
(sharing from one person to the next in a circle)

Imagine the news about the 9/11 bombings not being written about until 2030.
Another seven years. Most will have forgotten about it by then.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t play the telephone game

 

[St. SteVen]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t play the telephone game

Good answer. - LOL

 

[Sigma]

I didn't ask for a question. I wanted an answer.

I'm prefacing my answer with a question. Again, how do you authenticate the testimonies in the Bible?

The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.
You say cousins...
The Bible says Joseph waited until the child was born to have relations with his wife.
You say this means he never did have relations with his wife.

I never said the word "until" in Matt. 1:25 means Joseph and Mary never had intercourse, but rather that the word "until" has multiple definitions, and the definition that applies doesn't inform us whether they had or didn't have intercourse/children after Jesus's birth.

Scripture doesn't state Joseph and Mary waited until Jesus's birth to have intercourse, nor that they didn't have intercourse until after Jesus's birth, rather it states they didn't have intercourse until Jesus's birth. Again, the word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one inferred by the insertion of words like "waited" and "after."

The context of Matt. 1:20-25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father.

In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point.

The word "brother" has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman," etc. We agree the context in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 shows that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen. Kinsmen aren't limited to siblings, but rather can also refer to cousin, nephew, uncle, etc. Information needed to determine the type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen is lacking in those same verses and others. So, it's not as if I "worked around" something that is already definitively clear in the testimonies in the Bible. It's more accurate to say I bridged the gap between testimonies found and not found in the Bible, the result of which shows Jesus's kinsmen in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His cousins.

I already told you that I respect your position.
I need to hear you say the same to us rather than claim you have the 'truth", thus implying that we don't.

How's my speaking with firm conviction on this thread topic not respecting your position? I'd like to believe I've been respectful in my speech. In this thread, I've been laughed at, called "narrow-minded," "desperate," "brainwashed," "delusional," "indoctrinated," and "immature" by others who disagree with me, just because I speak with firm conviction about my position and/or for merely being a Catholic. Then, there's those who read those uncharitable posts to me by their fellow protestants and said nothing to them, at least publicly, if they read them at all. Where's the charity towards neighbor, including those seen as enemies, as Jesus taught and lived by example? Is this not our God's second greatest commandment?

Additionally, I never implied that anyone who currently believes Jesus had siblings doesn't have any truth, but rather the full truth on the matter. To believe Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings means you believe they were His kin. It's true; they were His kin. You all only err in believing the type of kinship to be that of siblings.

 

[RLT63]

I'm prefacing my answer with a question. Again, how do you authenticate the testimonies in the Bible?



I never said the word "until" in Matt. 1:25 means Joseph and Mary never had intercourse, but rather that the word "until" has multiple definitions, and the definition that applies doesn't inform us whether they had or didn't have intercourse/children after Jesus's birth.

Scripture doesn't state Joseph and Mary waited until Jesus's birth to have intercourse, nor that they didn't have intercourse until after Jesus's birth, rather it states they didn't have intercourse until Jesus's birth. Again, the word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one inferred by the insertion of words like "waited" and "after."

The context of Matt. 1:20-25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father.

In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point.

The word "brother" has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kin," etc. We agree the context in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 shows that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus were Jesus's brothers, as in "kin". Kin or kinsmen aren't limited to siblings, but can also refer to an uncle, nephew, cousin, etc. Information that can help determine the type of kinship between Jesus and His kinsmen in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is lacking in those same verses and others. So, it's not as if I "worked around" something that is already definitively clear in the testimonies in the Bible. It's more accurate to say I bridged the gap between testimonies found and not found in the Bible, the result of which shows Jesus's kinsmen in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His cousins.



How is my speaking with a firm conviction on this thread topic not respecting your position? I'd like to believe I've been respectful in my speech. In this thread, I've been laughed at, called "narrow-minded," "desperate," "brainwashed," "delusional," "indoctrinated," and "immature" by others who disagree with me, just because I speak with a firm conviction and/or for merely being a Catholic. Then, there's those who read those uncharitable posts to me by their fellow protestants and said nothing to them, at least publicly, if they saw it at all. Where's the charity towards neighbor, including those seen as enemies, as Jesus taught and lived by example? Is this not our God's second greatest commandment?

Additionally, I never implied that anyone who currently believes Jesus had siblings doesn't have any truth, but rather the full truth on the matter. To believe Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings means you believe they were His kin. It's true; they were His kin. You all only err in believing the type of kinship to be that of siblings.

@Aunty Jane can you field this one?

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
I already told you that I respect your position.
I need to hear you say the same to us rather than claim you have the 'truth", thus implying that we don't.

How's my speaking with firm conviction on this thread topic not respecting your position? I'd like to believe I've been respectful in my speech.

Again, by presenting YOUR position as TRUTH you infer that ANY other position is FALSE.
I apologize for the poor treatment you have received from other Protestants on this topic.
Hopefully they will read my words here and mend their ways.

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Aunty Jane can you field this one?

There is no way to address this poster’s POV. The old saying proves true....”a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”.....

The elephant in the room is still there.....large and ignored. Why?......because no one else but those who adhere to the Catholic faith has any scriptural reason to deny that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was a real marriage....and where the “marriage due” was expected. If Mary and Joseph had intercourse, then there goes Mary’s perpetual virginity....nothing in scripture says otherwise. It’s your church who says that’s true, not the Bible.

The Jews had large families because it was the norm. No one else looks for reasons why they did not have a normal Jewish family life with Jesus growing up in a family of siblings.

Edited to correct auto correct error.

 

[RLT63]

There is no way to address this poster’s POV. The old saying proves true....”a man conviction need against his will, is of the same opinion still”.....

The elephant in the room is still there.....large and ignored. Why?......because no one else but those who adhere to the Catholic faith has any scriptural reason to deny that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was a real marriage....and where the “marriage due” was expected. If Mary and Joseph had intercourse, then there goes Mary’s perpetual virginity....nothing in scripture says otherwise. It’s your church who says that’s true, not the Bible.

The Jews had large families because it was the norm. No one else looks for reasons why they did not have a normal Jewish family life with Jesus growing up in a family of siblings.

Not my Church

 

[Sigma]

Again, by presenting YOUR position as TRUTH you infer that ANY other position is FALSE.

Since the creation of this thread, people have been giving their evidence for why their position is true and the other false, because it can't both be true that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were and weren't Jesus's siblings, so one position is truth and the other false. However, again, I never implied that anyone who currently believes Jesus had siblings doesn't have any truth, but rather the full truth on the matter. To believe Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings means you believe they were His kinsmen. It's true; they were His kinsmen. You all only err in believing the type of kinship to be that of siblings.

How do we authenticate your extra-biblical evidence?

Again, I'll preface my answer with this question: how do you authenticate the testimonies in the Bible?

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
How do we authenticate your extra-biblical evidence?

I'll preface my answer with this question: how do you authenticate the testimonies in the Bible?

Translation: You can't authenticate your extra-biblical evidence.
Or, you can neither authenticate your extra-biblical evidence, nor can you authenticate the Bible.
Take your pick. I'm fine either way. I'm done going around in circles on this.

 

[Sigma]

St. SteVen said:
Translation: You can't authenticate your extra-biblical evidence.
Or, you can neither authenticate your extra-biblical evidence, nor can you authenticate the Bible.
Take your pick. I'm fine either way. I'm done going around in circles on this.

I want to answer your question, and I told you I'm prefacing my answer with this question: how do you authenticate the testimonies in the Bible? Because of you the conversation isn't moving forward, not in circles, as this is the fourth time you haven't answered that question.