ChristinaL
Active Member
Matt 27:56 says no such thing. I would also remind you that certain names were very common in those communities so your reference to James and Joseph could have been different people and scripture points that way
Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?
- Thread starter NotTheRock
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Thanks. The linked article addresses the issue of probability.
"Brethren of the Lord"
Protestants claim that Mary did not remain a virgin her entire life, and that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Here is the Catholic response.
What you’re offering, the article concedes, cannot be proven one way or the other from the range of meaning.
My wife’s family (which includes some priests, deacons and nuns) gave a more direct and simple answer -> It’s the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
“Brothers” means “cousins” because the Catholic Church says so.
And why does the Catholic Church say so?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If Mary had a sister Mary, they both could have named their sons James and Joseph.
My grandmother had a twin sister. They both named their sons “Bill.”
Catholics -> adelphos could mean ”brothers” but doesn’t in this case. It means “cousins”.
Non-Catholics -> adelphos could mean “cousins” but doesn’t in this case. It means “brothers”.
The push by Catholics to understand the text to mean “cousins” happens because of their dogma concerning Mary, not from the text. Absent the dogma the natural meaning of “brothers” is “brothers”. With the dogma there isn’t even the remotest possibility that “brothers” could actually mean “brothers”. The dogma interprets and controls the text.
So where does the dogma come from? It comes from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ambiguity of the word adelphos is resolved, for a Catholic, by the tradition and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
The issue then becomes that of either accepting or rejecting the validity of the tradition and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the overriding issue.
Non-Catholics have to understand that the fundamental issue here isn’t the range of meaning of adelphos (that’s easily agreed upon) but rather the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
In order for a Catholic to agree with a non-Catholic on the question asked in this thread, a Catholic must reject the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, the Catholic must cease being Catholic.
The Catholic is essentially being “invited“ to leave, to reject, to renounce, the Catholic Church. That’s unthinkable to a devout Catholic. In the words one of my wife’s relatives, “the devil is seducing us, tempting us, seeking to destroy the Church [with the argument that Mary gave birth to other children]”.
That, in my personal experience, is what people on both sides of the question are really up against.
Non-Catholics -> adelphos could mean “cousins” but doesn’t in this case. It means “brothers”.
The push by Catholics to understand the text to mean “cousins” happens because of their dogma concerning Mary, not from the text. Absent the dogma the natural meaning of “brothers” is “brothers”. With the dogma there isn’t even the remotest possibility that “brothers” could actually mean “brothers”. The dogma interprets and controls the text.
So where does the dogma come from? It comes from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ambiguity of the word adelphos is resolved, for a Catholic, by the tradition and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
The issue then becomes that of either accepting or rejecting the validity of the tradition and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the overriding issue.
Non-Catholics have to understand that the fundamental issue here isn’t the range of meaning of adelphos (that’s easily agreed upon) but rather the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
In order for a Catholic to agree with a non-Catholic on the question asked in this thread, a Catholic must reject the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, the Catholic must cease being Catholic.
The Catholic is essentially being “invited“ to leave, to reject, to renounce, the Catholic Church. That’s unthinkable to a devout Catholic. In the words one of my wife’s relatives, “the devil is seducing us, tempting us, seeking to destroy the Church [with the argument that Mary gave birth to other children]”.
That, in my personal experience, is what people on both sides of the question are really up against.
Neither "brothers" or "cousins" is a definition of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός'', but rather its only familial definition is "kinsman/kinswoman, or relative", and thus it can be used to refer to various types of family members. It's the genealogical evidence in post #4 that shows Jesus's brothers (kinsmen/relatives) believed to be His half-siblings were actually the sons of His Mother's Spouse's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary, and thus His cousins.
Last edited by a moderator:
You were also being presumptuous. Why are you on this site? Do you get your jollies by "winning" an argument, or are you here to learn and share ideas?
Your thesis that Mary had no other children has a bunch of rungs in its ladder. Any rung that fails will undermine your thesis. One of those rungs is your view that Galatians 1:18-19 paints James the brother of the Lord as one of the original Twelve apostles based on its context. I've given you my reason for disagreeing with your inference. You say your perceived context is evidence, I say its argument. (As a practicing trial lawyer for 45 years, I think I know the difference!) No need to argue, my brother. Let's leave it there. We are both Christians, both brothers, and there is no reason to accuse me of making "excuses, excuses" for not taking this further. I've explained my thinking, and I see no need to say more.
Thanks. The Catholics whom I’ve spoken with all landed on Catholic dogma, not genealogy, as the prohibiting factor for identifying as brothers and sisters.
I don’t see any prohibition for identifying them as brothers and sisters based solely on his genealogy.
I had my reasons.
One thing I do here is answer people's questions.
Again, the evidence in post #4 is the early Christian testimonies that support my arguments, which you haven't addressed. If you understand the difference, and read the post in full, you wouldn't have thought I was calling an argument evidence.
I have read it in full. Let's clear this up. Evidence is the text of the writing. Argument is the inference to be drawn from context of the text. One of the rungs of your ladder is the contextual inferences you draw -- and I do not draw -- from Gal. 1:18-19. So we have presented different arguments. Nothing more to say.
As I said, the evidence presented in post #4, which you haven't addressed yet, supports my arguments in the same post.
If that were to happen it would be the end of his faith as a Catholic. At this time, I don’t see that happening. He’s in debate mode, not discussion mode.
No, it wouldn't be the end. Why would it? And, post #4 shows that those believed to be Jesus's half-siblings were actually His cousins. Therefore, the idea of possibly being wrong on this topic doesn't apply to me.
Do you think you could remain a Catholic and believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
The question interests me, as I have a friend who was a Catholic and he was taught to question the Word and his beliefs, which eventually found him leaving the church.
I think someone like asoul could be taught to question the Word better in the hope of allowing the light of it to reach him.
F2F
I'm not going to address it any further. I've addressed the part of it that matters to me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
